Competitive Balance in the NBA

The idea that the NBA needs to implement revenue sharing in order to help small market teams and thereby maintain, restore, or create competitive balance is, I think, obviously absurd. The NBA really is one of the least-balanced major sports leagues around. But small market disadvantages have nothing to do with it. Neither the post-Ewing Knicks, the post-Jordan Bulls, nor post-Shaq Lakers have been able to leverage large markets into NBA success. The Spurs in tiny San Antonio (37 on the Nielson media markets list) are the most consistently successful team of recent years. Detroit is a modest-sized market at 11, as are the current champs in Miami at 17.

I think the main thing about competitiveness in the NBA is that as these dudes note there are very, very few people in the world with the appropriate physique to be NBA-quality big men. As a result the variance in big man quality is gigantic and this is semi-intrinsic to the sport. At the same time, the max salary rule ensures that the very best players in the league are underpaid, as are the very youngest stars. So there's a lot of essentially luck-based imbalance (i.e., Dwayne Wade is worth max money, but LeBron is worth even more money, but they both make the same, so Cleveland gets a better player but has the same cap room to find a supporting cast) playing out. Then, the combination of guaranteed contracts and the salary cap means that it's hard to undue the consequences of management fuckups so that even a great hoops genius probably couldn't turn, say, the Knicks around.

Comments

The NBA really is one of the least-balanced major sports leagues around

Salary cap + guaranteed contracts. The league isn't unbalanced, the talents of the GM's most certainly are. Petey, come tell us why Isiah is a genius...

Posted by Pooh | November 20, 2006 3:15 PM

This is exactly right. The soft cap, though hard for lay fans to understand, is an ingenius invention. Teams can break the cap to resign their own players (Bird Rights) but not new free agents. Except there is the mid-level exception, which every team gets every year. And teams have the trade exception, which they can trade to be able to take on more salary in trades even if they're already over the cap. And all trades, even among teams over the cap, work if the salaries are within 25% of each other.

All of this combines to make it very tempting for someone (read: "Isiah") from a big market team to screw his team into salary cap hell. As long as big market teams make all the right moves, they're better off, but if they screw one or two of them up, they're right back with everyone else.

Plus rookie contracts are slotted, making every marquee player affordable for the first few years of his career. Plus the wealthy teams pay a luxury tax.

All in all, the NBA's solution to the problems of market size have been remarkably effective at maintaining a competitive league.

Now, the columnist appears to be talking about financial competitiveness, not athletic competitiveness, but I tend to think there's no good reason to prop up sports franchises for the sake of propping them up. There is the possibility that 30 franchises is too many for basketball, exactly because the proper physique-skill combination is terribly difficult to find. If it takes fewer to yield a better, more financially viable product, so be it.

Posted by jhupp | November 20, 2006 3:19 PM

Now one kinda sorta revenue sharing idea that might be good would be to split home-road gate receipts in a way other than 100-0. Research on this indicates that game attendance is determined by three factors -- one is the size of the home market, the other is the quality of the home team (in terms of games won), and the third is the marketability of the opposition team stars. In other words, Iverson only helps the Sixers at the gate insofar as he helps the Sixers win, but he does a lot for the Knicks' attendance when the Sixers play in NY. So it might make sense to look at something more like a 70-30 split of the ticket sales.

Realistically, though, the best strategy for the sports' competitiveness is to keep boosting its popularity among foreign kids (bigger talent pool equals smaller talent disparities) while keeping NBA contracts more lucrative than European ones.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | November 20, 2006 3:26 PM

yeah, this is something people majorly overlook in the history of the nba. old fogies complain that the nba is no longer about the team or whatever, but since, say, 1960, you can count the number of teams who won the title without a no doubt Hall of Famer on one hand (04 Pistons, then that run in the 70s w/ the Sonics, Bullets, Blazers, Warriors (and maybe Celts and Knicks)). I guess that's a little more than two hands. But, yes, the point is that you generally need a bonafide Top 5 player to win a title, so in any given year there are like about 5 teams that could win a title. Guaranteed, the NBA champion this April will come from the following teams: Spurs (Duncan), Mavs (Dirk), Heat (Wade), Suns (Nash), Cavs (LeBron), Lakers (Kobe). That's just how it goes.

"Petey, come tell us why Isiah is a genius..."

Isiah gets way too much shit. Francis trade was pretty crappy. Curry trade MAY turn out poorly, but if they manage to stay out of the Top 5 this year, I don't think it was too bad. Tyrus Thomas is teh overratedz, so unless they get fucked this year ( a strong draft class) Eddy was probably worth the risk. Other than that, they are way better off than when Layden left. They have a ton of good young talent. Isiah has proven to be a prodigious drafter. Frye a nice pick at 8, Nate, not without his flaws, but a good pick where he was, and Lee at 30 is absolute insanity. The much-mocked Balkman pick looks better and better with each game, as Renaldo proves himself to already be a lockdown defender and surprisingly adept at the offensive end.

Isiah isn't perfect, but the team is in a WAY better situation than it used to be, and lets not forget they blew out the Wiz and Heat by over 20 in consecutive games. Now if only we could figure out how to win the easy games at home...

PS. Isiah is a crappy coach. Better at GMing than coaching by far.

Posted by Brian | November 20, 2006 3:27 PM

nor post-Shaq Lakers have been able to leverage large markets into NBA success

Although the post-Magic Lakers were able to leverage a large market into getting Shaq, which led to NBA success.

However, there are relatively few NBA superstars that change teams via free agency (really, how many can you think of?), which (given the cap and other salary issues) seems to me to be the main way that a large market could have leverage over a small market.

Posted by Al | November 20, 2006 3:40 PM

Interestingly, at the championship level, the NBA is by far the least competitive league. Since 1980, only eight teams have won the title, and six of them have won 24 of 26 titles (the Heat & Sixers won one each). Contrast this with the MLB, which has had 19 different winners and and the top 6 (Yankees, Marlins, Cardinals, Twins, and two others) combine for 12 titles. Both leagues have been equally competitive for top-8 playoff berths.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | November 20, 2006 3:51 PM

First a little history:
--Blazers-Bill Walton
--Warriors-Rick Barry
--Bullets-Wes Unseld
--Sonics-Dennis Johnson (Larry Bird said he was "the best.")

Second, it is coaching. Coaching in the NBA is worth 10 wins in the regular season and a couple in the playoffs. Consider a pathetic Warriors fan who was Chris Webbered (thankfully he has never really been in an NBA finals) a decade ago, and can only be thankful that the best little man coach ever is back in the saddle. Nellie is one of the best, Ewing asicde, and the Warriors of today may surprise for a while until he starts to glean some Euros and throw aways (Hardaway, Sprewel, Richmond) onto the team. If only he could have coached the Warriors through the last decade, we would be the Mavs today.

Posted by Ernie Fazio | November 20, 2006 4:00 PM

I suspect that stability in long-term competitiveness derives in part from the NBA's great stability in game- and season-level competitiveness, which in turn derives largely from the number of scoring events per contest. Simply put, the best NBA teams win day-in, day-out with much greater consistency than the best teams in any other "major" team sport except for football, and great football teams' results are across a much smaller sample size and tend to diminish in the playoffs. That's what you'd expect if individual games were a truer test of quality, which in turn is what you'd expect if individual games were made up of many small events that *counted at the end*: e.g., a couple hundred scoring chances of which roughly a hundred count. Small-but-real differences in quality in baseball, hockey, soccer, and (to a lesser extent) football tend to get swamped at the game level by a few events that matter hugely.

Posted by Sam Penrose | November 20, 2006 4:04 PM

Isiah isn't perfect, but the team is in a WAY better situation than it used to be, and lets not forget they blew out the Wiz and Heat by over 20 in consecutive games.

That overstates it, I think. Starbury's a cancer, and everyone has long known that. Same with Francis. Isiah cannot seem to acquire players with an eye toward anything but Talent! (or Athleticism!), and that has severely limited the team. He hired a coach (Brown) with precisely the opposite player strategy, for a gawdawful amount of money.

What if, instead, the Knicks had simply hired a shoe? Contracts would have lapsed, the Knicks record would have been largely the same, and they'd be much better positioned to go after talent.

Isiah's been an epic disaster, and I say that someone who (a) used to be an enormous fan, and (b) really hopes he can somehow redeem himself this season with his coaching.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | November 20, 2006 4:05 PM

"First a little history:
--Blazers-Bill Walton
--Warriors-Rick Barry
--Bullets-Wes Unseld
--Sonics-Dennis Johnson (Larry Bird said he was "the best.")"

I didn't say the teams didn't have GREAT players, simply that they weren't at the same level as league-dominators like Duncan, Shaq, Jordan, Olajuwon, Bird, Magic, Erving, Kareem, Chamberlain etc.

-DJ was obviously nowhere close to a Top 5 player.

-Barry was close but wasn't quite there. I'd say he's comparable to Arenas today.

-When the Bullets won, Unseld averaged 7.6 PPG, 11.9 RPG, and 4.1 APG. Nice numbers. Top 5? Err...Even when Unseld won the MVP I don't think any serious basketball historian would argue he was one of the 5 greatest players in the NBA in 1969.

-Walton...maybe, but this wasn't his MVP year. He played 65 games and wasn't even the leading scorer on his team. I think he clearly is an exception to the rule of transcendent players being the ones who win titles. I guess, after reconsidering, you should probably throw Isiah's Pistons in here too, cause he wasn't QUITE at MJ, Bird and Magic's level.

Posted by Brian | November 20, 2006 4:15 PM

"Isiah cannot seem to acquire players with an eye toward anything but Talent! (or Athleticism!), and that has severely limited the team."

I think this is a lame and oft-repeated criticism. People would say the same shit about Billups 5 years ago that they did about Marbury, except Billups wasn't as good! Marbury is showing this year that he can change. Yes, Isiah did sort of neglect defense in his acquisitions, but that all changed this year. His three pickups (Jeffries, Balkman, Collins) were all made with defense in mind, yet they were all ripped to shreds! (sidenote: what the heck was with people ripping the Collins pick? He went right where he was supposed to go and has looked fine thus far. It's like people are on auto-criticize mode w/ Isiah).

What it comes down to is that Isiah needs to go .500 this year or his experiment is a failed one. But to suggest that he's dug them a deeper hole is misleading. He's done a great job drafting, and they'll be under the cap in, I think, two summers. Calling him an epic disaster is pretty silly. Layden fucked them in the ass, Isiah came and tried an aggressive strategy to move back into contention. It looks like it might not work, but I'm not so sure.

Watching the Knicks this year, one thing stands out. They can run with the best teams in the NBA. They have the toughest schedule in the league for the opening month, and yet the compete every night. They'll emerge from November with a pretty crummy record and then they'll start to surprise people. Seriously, look at their schedule. It's fucking brutal. Be ready for a 25 games-into-the-season surge.

Posted by Brian | November 20, 2006 4:23 PM

first off, matthew has made the argument (without realizing it) that i make all the time: there are too many damn teams. reduce the number of teams, everything would be fine.

second, Brian, Walton was a transcendent player when healthy, one of the top 5 centers in history (since he didn't stay healthy, i don't put him in my top centers of all time list, but when he was healthy, he was right there with russ, wilt, kareem, and hakeem). Rick Barry was much more than Arenas (to date, but who is to say).

DJ, on the other hand, while a terrific player, certainly wasn't top 5 material; unseld is a little more arguable, due to his lack of offensive skills, but fabulous rebounder, pick-setter, and outlet thrower, just fabulous....

Posted by howard | November 20, 2006 4:27 PM

PS, brian, i'll be ready for a knick surge when someone other than david lee shows a nose for rebounding and an ability to make stops. but i digress....

Posted by howard | November 20, 2006 4:29 PM

I could probably be convinced on Walton. That may have been one of the like 2 years where he could be considered up there with the greats. Whatever, that actually proves my point more so. Gotta have that superstar.

Come on, Unseld? Great player, without a doubt. But Top 5?! At that point in his career?! No way.

And would you really put Barry up there with the Pantheon of MJ, Wilt, Bird, Russell etc.? Great player in a somewhat weak era for superstars (looking at the All-Star game that year, once you get past Kareem you go to second tier guys like Frazier, Barry, Havlicek, Tiny, Cowens, Monroe etc.).

"brian, i'll be ready for a knick surge when someone other than david lee shows a nose for rebounding and an ability to make stops. but i digress...."

Ugh, agreed on the boarding. Curry's inability to bound is like astounding. He's standing right next to the damn basket. But Frye seems to be improving in the past few games, and, seriously, Balkman is a legit rebounder and a defensive stopper. Plus, when Jeffries gets back he should give us those things. The triumvirate of Lee, Jeffries, and Balkman will be a force on the D and on the boards.

Posted by brian | November 20, 2006 4:43 PM

People would say the same shit about Billups 5 years ago that they did about Marbury, except Billups wasn't as good!

Or as expensive! Which meant he'd be easier to move if he continued to suck! That's why a good GM like Petrie dealt Webber for three pieces of equal contract length! Think the Sixers wish they had that one back?

No one's arguing that Layden didn't suck. But--as impossible as it seemed at the time of Layden's firing--Isiah's worse. Gawd, I'd love to know what the cost per win over the Isiah tenure has been.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | November 20, 2006 4:50 PM

The triumvirate of Lee, Jeffries, and Balkman will be a force

[Selective quotation intentional]

Is this an expansion team we're talking about? At least the Bobcats had the legit upside of Gerald Wallace...

Posted by Pooh | November 20, 2006 4:51 PM

Tim,

I simply disagree. I think the idea of being a cancer is somewhat overrated, and Marbury is a very talented player. The Knicks would be horrendous without him.

Pooh,

Everyone agrees Lee is a very talented young player, that Jeffries is a great defender, and every one who has actually SEEN Balkman play can see how good he is on D, so I gotta say I don't get your point.

Posted by brian | November 20, 2006 4:55 PM

I agree that Lee has talent...however:

"LeBron! Balkman! The Cavs and Knicks, Sunday on ABC"

And sorry to say, Jeffries is a stiff. People say he's a decent defender because, lacking cognizable skills, there has to be some reason Isiah signed him, right?

My point is that you are pretty deep into the barrel if those are your positives...

I simply disagree. I think the idea of being a cancer is somewhat overrated, and Marbury is a very talented player. The Knicks would be horrendous without him.

Except that every single team has gotten better without him, and every single team has been disappointing with him.

Posted by Pooh | November 20, 2006 5:01 PM

The move by Isiah to get Eddy Curry - who is blessed with size, but without a head or heart for the game - will go down as one of the worst NBA trades of all time. He gave up TWO unprotected number 1 draft choices, each of which could have produced a better player than Curry, for a decent center. Unforgivable. Big market teams do not build with free agents in the current era. They build through smart draft choices (Duncan, LeBron, Wade, Kobe, Dirk, Garnett, etc). Some of them were no brainers. Not all of them. But, Isiah wanted to win now. And so he neglected to craft a smart strategy to build a strong young team for the future.

As for drafting Frye, he passed on Bynum to take the Arizona player. Bynum was a gutsy move by the Lakers, and may turn out to be the best player in that draft. Frye looked decent last year, but is currently regressing to Loren Woods territory. Lack of vision and guts by Isiah; instead giving in to win now pressure.

Posted by Jason McDaniel | November 20, 2006 5:11 PM

first off, matthew has made the argument (without realizing it) that i make all the time: there are too many damn teams. reduce the number of teams, everything would be fine.

Arguably true.

It's worth saying that there are many different senses of "balance." Any particular season of NFL action tends to get pretty lopsided, but the way the NFL CBA works means that there's a lot of season-to-season instability.

The NBA has aspects of both kinds of imbalance -- the best teams tend to amass records that are way better than those of the worst teams and there's a lot of season-to-season instability since the contract structure makes it relatively easy to keep a good team together and rather difficult to un-do management errors and/or bad luck with injuries.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | November 20, 2006 5:12 PM

By the way, I meant to say "Winning teams do not build through free agency alone ..." instead of "Big market teams ..." in the post above.

Posted by Jason McDaniel | November 20, 2006 5:13 PM

and there's a lot of season-to-season instability since the contract structure makes it relatively easy to keep a good team together and rather difficult to un-do management errors and/or bad luck with injuries

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the point, but aren't you saying there's season-to-season stability? That is, unlike the NFL, if you are bad last year, there's a pretty good chance you'll be bad this year too?

Posted by Al | November 20, 2006 5:18 PM

Big market teams do not build with free agents in the current era. They build through smart draft choices (Duncan, LeBron, Wade, Kobe, Dirk, Garnett, etc).

So the Pistons were "built" through... Tayshaun Prince? Darko?

I don't know why you say "big market" teams then go on to talk about San Antonio, Cleveland, and Minnesota. The only truly "big market" team to win a championship in 8 years was the Lakers, and their free agent signing of Shaq was certainly a big piece to that puzzle.

More to the point, Isiah's problem hasn't been signing free agents; it's been his repeated willingness to acquire absurd contracts with marginally more "raw talent" in exchange for draft picks, cheap young players, or expiring contracts.

Posted by right | November 20, 2006 5:18 PM

Isiah cannot seem to acquire players with an eye toward anything but Talent! (or Athleticism!), and that has severely limited the team

Honestly, I think the ability of clever general management to turn a team around is overstated. If you look at teams that improve dramatically, the key move tends to have either been a no-brainer (trade for Shaq!) or some kind of dumb luck (Dwayne Wade turns out to be better than 'Melo or Darko even though nobody, including your own scouts, thought so). Obviously, at the margin GM decisions matter, but it's hard to get good without being dealt a favorable hand. Joe Dumars in Detroit seems to be the exception who built a championship team primarily through non-obvious deals.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | November 20, 2006 5:19 PM

Jason, just now saw your clarification on "big market" vs. "winning." The points about the Pistons and Lakers still stand though.

Posted by right | November 20, 2006 5:21 PM

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the point, but aren't you saying there's season-to-season stability? That is, unlike the NFL, if you are bad last year, there's a pretty good chance you'll be bad this year too?

Right. That's what I meant. The exception, of course, is when you wind up drafting a super-impact rookie. But if you have bad contracts on your payroll, you have bad contracts on your payroll and there's not a great deal you can do.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | November 20, 2006 5:21 PM

Honestly, I think the ability of clever general management to turn a team around is overstated.

I'm often sympathetic to this point, but when you look at the last five years experience of Tim Duncan's Spurs compared to Kevin Garnett's Wolves, you almost have to conclude that the reason the Spurs have stayed on top while the Wolves have faltered is that Popovich is a far more skilled GM than Kevin McHale.

Certainly the Wade/Shaq examples abound, but I think there's room for both theories to be true. The most recent Lakers mini-dynasty was built through a combo of obvious (sign Shaq) and non-obvious (trade your starting center for a 17 year old guard) moves that both paid off.

Posted by right | November 20, 2006 5:26 PM

I guess, after reconsidering, you should probably throw Isiah's Pistons in here too, cause he wasn't QUITE at MJ, Bird and Magic's level.

I'll ask a heretical question, then: does last year's Heat team have a genuine top-5 player? Shaq is past his top 5 years, and Wade... well, Wade is definitely a great player. But high-scoring shooting guards tend to be a little overrated when their teams win.

Put another way: could the team have done as well with, say, Michael Redd in that spot? If Redd had been the player filling that role for the Heat, would we be talking about him as a top 5 player?

As they say... just askin'

Posted by Brad Lehman | November 20, 2006 5:30 PM

The ability of clever GM-ing to *turn a team around* in a rapid dramatic way is probably overstated, yeah, but the ability to keep a team in some degree of contention requires some degree of GMing skill. Look at, say, the Kings. I'm not going to say every decision they've made in the past six or seven years was the right one, but while they haven't yet returned to the level of championship contenders, they've stayed a playoff caliber team while overhauling the roster - Bibby is the only (key?) player left from the team that went to the Western Conference Finals, right? That's impressive. Getting to be a championship contender involves a certain amount of luck, I think (see: San Antonio Spurs, Boston Celtics, Tim Duncan) but you need to have some chops at least to stay competitive on a consistent basis. And the thing is there are so many obviously *bad* GMs in the league that it probably exaggerates how good Petrie or the guys in San Antonio (Buford's the GM, right?) look. I honestly think that given, say, a year's apprenticeship and the kind of support staff available to the modern GM, half the guys in this conversation could do a better job than the Scott Laydens and Billy Kings of the world, partly because we wouldn't make certain of the stupid yet predictable mistakes bad GMs make, such as overpaying for people like Jerome James or Olowakandi. Or losing how many years of draft picks because we set up an under the table illegal deal to pay Joe Smith (JOE SMITH!) huge money.

Brad Lehman - there's something to what you're saying. I think Wade is better than Redd, but...for example, much as it pains me to say it I honestly believe that Kobe Bryant is a better player than Paul Pierce, though not by *that* much. But if you magically switched their careers, I'm pretty sure that (a) their respective teams would have achieved similar results, and (b) it would become arguable, in people's minds, that Pierce was the better player (and someone like me would make exactly the same argument I just made, except with the names switched back). (Plus, (c), since Pierce's pro-athlete insanity is more of a depressive moodiness and less of an egotistical rage, there probably would've been less pressure to break up the Shaq/superstar-swingman combo, for better or for worse.)

Posted by Quarterican | November 20, 2006 5:46 PM

Q,

That's an interesting point. I will say that what I believe to be a problem with your analysis (and one common to this type of discussion in general) is that it fails to account for the degree in which comparisons of basketball players have to be more zero-sum than those of baseball players.

I mean, if the Red Sox are playing the Yankees, Big Papi vs. A-Rod (offense only, I add), who cares, they both bring about the same value. However, Kobe vs. Pierce, not only does Kobe bring more to the table, he turns what should be the C's strongest position into a deficit. It's hard to say at what point of "X is better than Y" this occurs. In my mind, it's a tipping point sort of thing.

Posted by Pooh | November 20, 2006 5:57 PM

Joe Dumars in Detroit seems to be the exception who built a championship team primarily through non-obvious deals.

Kiki, no? And (this is so wrong to write that I'm actually afraid) the Clips of late.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | November 20, 2006 6:05 PM

I think Wade is better than Redd, but...for example, much as it pains me to say it I honestly believe that Kobe Bryant is a better player than Paul Pierce, though not by *that* much.

This is sort of what I am getting at... the difference between scoring guards is just not as great as people imagine.

As a thought experiment: imagine you took all of the players in today's NBA, and did a playground-style team picking exercise. No contracts, salary caps, or long-term concerns. Sort of like a fantasy league, but geared towards winning actual games, not stat-based points.

Who do you think the top five picks would be?

I'm guessing that Duncan, Nowitski, Garnett, LeBron, and Jason Kidd would be near the top. They bring attributes that are difficult to replicate... versatile big men and point guards are extremely rare. Kobe would probably be the first SG picked, I'd bet. Wade might go in the top ten, but he'd be just atop sort of glut of scorers (Pierce, Ray Allen, Redd), and possibly behind a few other guys (Steve Nash, perhaps). He's an exciting player, but the skills he brings are just not that unique.

Posted by Brad Lehman | November 20, 2006 6:13 PM

The NBA also has only 7 or 8 players per team who account for all of the plays in a game, as opposed to 10-15 for baseball, 15-18 (? guessing) for hockey, 11-13 for soccer, and ~35 for football. Furthermore, most NBA championship teams consist of:

1 or 2 all-time greats playing near the peak of their abilities
1 or 2 all stars / marginal HoF types w/ complementary skills
4 or 5 role players, usually a couple not good enough to start for a winning team.

Outstanding baseball and football teams (and I believe hockey and soccer teams as well) are not like this: they have many above-average players, few weaknesses, and often no all-time great playing near his peak.

Posted by Sam Penrose | November 20, 2006 6:14 PM

But there are only, like, three or four guys in the league who could regularly turn "what should be the C's strongest position into a deficit." Not to mention that Kobe and Paul are both really 2/3s and wouldn't necessarily match up on the floor (that's where, honestly, I think Kobe's superiority asserts itself, because he's clearly a better defender. It's been some time since I watched a Cs/Lakers game, but while given who's on those teams today Paul and Kobe would probably guard each other, they very well might not have back in 2002). But anyway, since Pierce is almost always going to be better than his opposite number, and since Prime Era Shaq was always better than his opposite number, Shaq/Pierce still wins championships and Walker/Kobe...maybe beats the Nets and gets to the Finals? The conversation would look different.

It's, in general, interesting to me to look at the four guys I sort of consider peers - Kobe, Vince, Pierce and McGrady are all about the same age and are all like variations on a theme (the theme of MJ?) Kobe's the best defender and the most well rounded, Vince is the most athletic, Pierce has the best post game, McGrady seemed the coolest and most effortless, and if you'd ranked them in 2001 vs. 2006, the only person who'd be in the same spot would be Kobe (my lists for the record: Kobe, Vince, Tracy, Paul vs. Kobe, Paul, Healthy Tracy, Vince, Unhealthy Tracy). And if you gave any of those guys Shaq and Phil Jackson, they'd have three rings. Part of it is because, I think, the added time in the league has revealed more about them - in the psychological sense as well as just in terms of who's prone to getting injured - but it also has to do with the atmospheres they were given. Pierce would probably be a better player than he is if he'd had the experience of playing in LA. Or what's the difference between Duncan and Garnett? Better coaching and better GMing, nothing intrinsic (IMO). Hence GMing matters (to try and get back on topic, sort of).

Posted by Quarterican | November 20, 2006 6:18 PM

As a thought experiment: imagine you took all of the players in today's NBA, and did a playground-style team picking exercise. No contracts, salary caps, or long-term concerns.

Excluding centers, I think my top pick would be either LeBron or Kobe. I don't know why people are so unwilling to give him his due.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | November 20, 2006 6:18 PM

...tiny San Antonio...

Just to defend the hometown a bit...that Nielson market list separates San Antonio from Austin for calculation purposes, which is weird because Dallas-Ft. Worth, San Fran-San Jose, Cleveland-Akron, Seattle-Tacoma and other areas are all grouped together even though they are not noticably less disparate communities than San Antonio-Austin. Adding the two markets together vaults the numbers up into the Denver range (18 or so). Plus, for the purposes of NBA fandom, Texas south of San Antonio is pretty much Spurs territory, which moves the market up towards Miami (whoops...Miami and Ft. Lauderdale).

Not important, but still... Remember the Alamo.

Posted by collin | November 20, 2006 6:23 PM

Excluding centers, I think my top pick would be either LeBron or Kobe. I don't know why people are so unwilling to give him his due.

I didn't think Kobe was being shorted on accolades. He's an amazing player, no doubt, and the only scoring guard that I think might make his way into the top 5. But I still think that the 7-footer who can score, rebound, and handle the ball (whether or not he is a center) will still be chosen above every other (non-Kobe) scorer. Kobe's the only one you can make the case for, and I'm still not sure that he'd go ahead of some of those guys.

Posted by Brad Lehman | November 20, 2006 6:29 PM

"The move by Isiah to get Eddy Curry - who is blessed with size, but without a head or heart for the game - will go down as one of the worst NBA trades of all time. He gave up TWO unprotected number 1 draft choices, each of which could have produced a better player than Curry, for a decent center."

That's just dumb. WTF is so great about Tyrus Thomas? If he hadn't had a great few games in the NCAA tournament, where would he have gone? Last year's draft is up there with the Kenyon Martin draft as one of the worst of all time. I seem to remember a hyped athletic LSU PF going high in that one too...

Remains to be seen about this year. If the Knicks blow it and the Bulls get a Top 5 pick in this loaded draft, it would've been a crappy trade. If the Knicks are solid, which it looks like they will be, it'll be a fine trade. Eddy Curry is 23 yrs. old, everyone should calm down.

Posted by brian | November 20, 2006 6:42 PM

But I still think that the 7-footer who can score, rebound, and handle the ball (whether or not he is a center) will still be chosen above every other (non-Kobe) scorer

You hate Kobe for his freedom, don't you? I can see Duncan, but not Garnett or Nowitzki. The latter two are just too soft (and, no, I don't know why I think of Garnett as soft). I'm not sure who else is there.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | November 20, 2006 6:46 PM

I don't know why I think of Garnett as soft

Because he didn't deck Anthony Peeler?

Or because (and this is like the tenth time I say this on a Matt Y. blog, but the first time at this domain) Garnett is one of the most physically gifted big men in history, his GM (and briefly his coach) for that entire time had one of the best, if not the best, post game in history (seriously, moves within moves within moves...), and yet learned...nothing. I don't know who's fault it is, but it's someone's. Just ain't right.

Posted by Quarterican | November 20, 2006 6:53 PM

If you look at teams that improve dramatically, the key move tends to have either been a no-brainer (trade for Shaq!)

Well, hold on. I know some moves are no brainers, but do you think that the GMs who make them are just lucky to have a superstar fall into their lap? I know there is often extenuating circumstances causing the superstar to be on the block, but there's got to be SOME reason that he ends up on one GM's team as opposed to another. I mean, why did Shaq end up in Miami - was it just a 1-in-29 chance, with every team (and every GM) in the league having an equal shot? I don't think so. And the Nets, did they get soooo incredibly lucky to have BOTH Kidd and Vince fall into their lap? Or maybe do you think Rod Thorn had something to do with it? I think it's a bit facile to say that a monkey-as-GM would have ended up with the same team that Riley did in Miami.

Posted by Al | November 20, 2006 6:55 PM

brian, i know the thread has veered while i had to step away, but just to go back: no, i don't put rick barry right up there with mj, wilt, bird, russ, but that doesn't mean that the likes of barry, havlicek, etc. weren't obvious, guaranteed hall-of-famers.

as i say, i'd probably go along with you that wes unseld isn't one of the top 5 in the game at his peak, but he's probably in the top 10-12....

Posted by howard | November 20, 2006 7:03 PM

You hate Kobe for his freedom, don't you?

Damn, you figured me out! Nah, I don't hate Kobe at all. I do think he made a big mistake forcing Shaq out of town (if you think he had a hand in it). I think they would have been in the finals with a real chance to win for another couple of years, rather than two years of relative mediocrity.

I can see Duncan, but not Garnett or Nowitzki. The latter two are just too soft (and, no, I don't know why I think of Garnett as soft).

I think KG and Dirk are seen as soft b/c they are tall, and therefore expected to play in the low post and bang around. I think Dirk has started to shed the soft image (a little blood will do that). As for KG... well, when a guy leads the league in rebounds for three straight years, he can't be that soft, even if he is 6-11.

Posted by Brad Lehman | November 20, 2006 7:08 PM

Quoting brian: "That's just dumb. WTF is so great about Tyrus Thomas? If he hadn't had a great few games in the NCAA tournament, where would he have gone?"

Dumb? Okay. When did I say that Tyrus Thomas is better than Curry? I said a player taken at No. 4 could be better than Curry. That just might be Thomas. But it could have been Adam Morrison, Brandon Roy, Foye, Rudy Gay, etc. All wing players, yes. And everyone of them Id rather have than Curry. Why? Potential and low salary! And that is not to mention this year's draft pick! Which could, of course, be the big fish, Greg Oden. Horrid trade. One of the worst trades of all time. Period. That move, plus the trades for Francis and Marbury, destroyed the franchise. It will take YEARS to recover.

The point is that two top 5 draft picks on rookie salaries are entirely more valuable to a rebuilding team than a maxed out Center who has reached his mediocre peak. Also, not wasting the bank on Curry would have allowed the Knicks to truly rebuild instead of the walking dead fiasco that they have become.

And as to Mr. Yglesias, I dont think your point is inconsistent with mine. The Pistons didnt win because of free agents. I dont think any of their major players were attained through free agency, but rather smart trades (obtaining somewhat tainted talent for cheap trades, ie Rasheed, Billups, Hamilton), drafting (yes, Tayshaun Prince, who is a very solid contributor at the low draft pick), and coaching.

In fact, the Pistons example proves my point in that Dumars did not draft well with the Darko pick, or obtain value for him via trade, and therefore, the Pistons will not win another championship. Being a Lakers fan who expected to waltz to the title in 2004, I will say that the Pistons hit us like a buzzsaw that year. I gave almost all the credit to Larry Brown. It was a masterful series in which he entirely outcoached Phil Jackson by mainly taking Kobe away through aggressive trapping, and single covering the already in decline Shaq.

The Spurs have certainly not won through free agency: Duncan, Parker, GInobli, not Brent Barry or Rasho Nesterovic, who were free agent acquisitions. Yes, they got lucky (incredibly lucky, perhaps the luckiest any NBA team has ever gotten with the Duncan pick), but, Parker and Ginobli were sheer genius picks.

And the final example, my beloved Lakers. Two years ago they thought they had a plan to pursue the big fish free agent (Bosh, Amare, etc.) Of course, those players signed their max extensions, as has almost every other major free agent. So, they had a horrible season and drafted Bynum. No one expected Bynum to contribute last year, and he didnt, or this year ... but he is contributing. The same could be said of drafting Jordan Farmar this year, Ronny Turiaf last year, and Walton. These are going to be solid role players for the Lakers for years. And they will sign relatively cheap, cap friendly extensions. If the Lakers enter a new phase of success, that will be the reason, not any free agent acquisitions. In the NBA today, free agents are solid role players. You need them to contribute to succeed, but you cant win championships based on free agency alone. I dont think the Bulls will go very far with Ben Wallace. I dont think the Hornets will go very far with Peja (though, with Chris Paul, it might be possible).

Trades are difficult. Free agency is increasingly a tenuous proposition. A GM who can run an organization well has to draft well and be smart with the finances, and get lucky. I think we all can agree on that. Im increasingly of the opinion that the big free agent signing almost never works. I havent done any analysis, but since Shaq ... has it worked for anyone? The Magic with McGrady and Hill? No (bad luck? Yes).

The Magic will be another test case this coming off season. Do they break the bank to sign Vince Carter? They have a very nice young nucleus, and it would seem to make perfect since to get that high scoring veteran guard to put them over the top. I just dont think it will work. Develop your young players, trade surplus talent for what you need, instead of signing the big free agent, and then sign cap friendly MLE free agents to round out the recipe.

Posted by Jason McDaniel | November 21, 2006 4:17 AM

Because I'm all about the love: "• Stephon Marbury and Steve Francis played six minutes in the second half combined. Talk about easy money." Excellent work, Isiah.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | November 21, 2006 9:46 AM

a lot of this discussion comes down to the fact that there are only five players on the floor at a given time in the NBA, meaning each player is more important than in other sports (other than tennis or other solo sports). big men are more important than little guys because they provide multiple types of value -- scoring, rebounding, blocks, along with some amount of intimidation in the lane, fouls on the opposing defenders, etc. -- that most littler guys don't. big men who aren't considered legit big men (e.g., dirk) generally fail to provide some of these types of value (with dirk, it's defense).

so you win with some combination of dominant big men, unless you play in the fairly weak mid-90s NBA, in which case two of best non-big men of all time (jordan and pippen) will do.

because each player is so important in basketball, and big men even more so, the meta-game of managing cap, making trades, drafting, is even more important than in other sports (but i think the coaching side is somewhat less important than in, e.g., football, where a good coach adds serious wins because -- ta da -- the number of players is high enough that skill levels on teams are pretty close overall). getting lucky helps (you get jordan instead of bowie, or get duncan when you already have robinson, or you take somewhat of a flyer on kobe).

i also think people are ignoring will to win, clutchness, whatever. just as some QBs are money (montana, brady) and you know they have the heart, the will to win, some nba players are the same (jordan, kobe, wade). paul pierce almost certainly does not win championships with the lakers like kobe did. duncan's most overlooked attribute is his hidden yet very real determination (he really, really wants to win, so much that he chokes at times on the line). i think someone like ewing just did not have it (you could see the fear in his eyes when it came crunch time, same as you can with shaq (kobe helped him loads on that score)). maybe a better example is weber, who just didn't seem to have the heart to win (by contrast, bibby wanted to win, was willing to take the shot, etc.). it's fascinating to watch lebron "learn" this. of course, this could just be confirmation bias -- pierce hasn't won, so i think of him a certain way, but it's really just chance, not getting the right situation. but i don't buy it (peyton manning's a good example of someone who seems unlikely to get over the hump, or maybe only very late like elway).

Posted by dj superflat | November 21, 2006 11:58 AM

dj superflat -

Come on. Manning's issues, whatever they may be, aren't Pierce's, and they're not comparable in that respect. The Manning/Dungy combo is what, over .750 in winning percentage? The Colts are obviously a really good team and the only reason any pundit in the last few years might *not* have picked them as a Superbowl candidate is because of the issues in Manning's head.

Pierce, on the other hand, has never played with anybody better than Antoine Walker, never played for a better coach than Jim O'Brien, and yet has on multiple occasions singlehandedly willed the Celtics to victory. Pierce (and Walker) are the authors of what I believe is still the greatest fourth quarter comeback in playoff history (in the Finals against the Nets). In the past few years he's developed an alarming tendency to brick late free throws (and while I'm nitpicking, I think he gets caught up in trying to prove himself vs. the other leading lights at his position), but it's ridiculous to say that Kobe has a "will to win" and Pierce doesn't, considering that there have been occasions when Kobe clearly put himself and/or proving a point above doing what was best for the Lakers. There are players in the NBA who clearly shy away from taking the big shots when they count (Webber, KG) but Pierce has never shown that flaw.

Posted by Quarterican | November 21, 2006 1:20 PM

you may be right, but i don't agree that (e.g.) manning and marino just happen to be snakebit while people like brady and roethlisberger (pre-idiotic accident) just keep winning. similarly, i don't think it's just luck that jordan wills his way to all those titles while folk with arguably similar gifts just can't seem to get their teams over the hump. some ahtletes seem to be winners, others not, and it often seems to be more mental (which obviously has to be the distinguishing factor when you're talking about people with extraordinary physical abilities, because that's likely the real way to distinguish yourself).

Posted by dj superflat | November 21, 2006 4:09 PM

>that Nielson market list separates San Antonio from Austin for
>calculation purposes, which is weird...

No weirdness. Dallas and Fort Worth share TV and radio stations. Austin and San Antonio don't. Sea-Tac and DFW are about 35 miles apart, Austin and San Antonio are about 75. Hence, DFW is one market, Austin-San Marcos and San Antonio are two.

Austin follows the Spurs, but not to the extent that San Antonio does, and there is also a lot of interest here in the Mavs and Rockets. (Austin's true loyalties are burnt orange, however.)

Posted by rvman | November 21, 2006 4:16 PM

some ahtletes seem to be winners, others not, and it often seems to be more mental (which obviously has to be the distinguishing factor when you're talking about people with extraordinary physical abilities, because that's likely the real way to distinguish yourself).

I think there is some divide between sports fans that maps to that described by CP Snow, because I find descriptions like that quoted above to be maddening. But I can't really refute them, and I'm not sure that people who find such arguments convincing aren't better at predicting outcomes than I or others of my ilk; in fact, I'm pretty sure that some sizable portion would outperform me. And yet I can't buy such explanations.

(I hope the above doesn't come off as a shot at dj superflat, as it wasn't meant that way. I just find the whole thing interesting, particularly because I'm not a very big fan of statistical explanations for basketball outcomes.)

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | November 21, 2006 5:34 PM

no offense taken, i find it interesting too. for what it's worth, i'm a scientist/empiricist about most everything. the empirical ground for my assertion is that some athletes with extraordianary skills just never seem to win it all, others with similar skills seem to do nothing but win it all. i think it's a combination of will/agression/self-confidence, knowledge of what actually matters in winning a game, an inability to be discouraged or feel victimized, etc.).

to put it in hoops terms, does anyone really dispute that vince carter doesn't seem to care too much about winning as compared to kobe? or compare barkley's physique while playing to jordan's or pippen's -- barkley obviously couldn't really be bothered to put everything he had into being the best basketball player he could be (which is why it's extraordinary how good he was). would you trust webber down the stretch over duncan? can you remember the haunted look in webber's eyes during those fourth quarters against LA (am i going to screw up again)? willingness/ability to play through pain likely is relevant as well (sickly jordan or pippen soldiering on).

somewhat arbitrary statistics like rebounds (many of which are gimmes for the big guys) or blocks (ignoring how often a big guy dissuades people from even entering the lane), even points (which have different value based on when scored, whether you're taking shots from teammates, etc.) should sometimes be ignored in favor of what are ultimately the only meaningful statistics -- number of wins and rings on hand.

Posted by dj superflat | November 21, 2006 7:34 PM

what it's worth, i'm a scientist/empiricist about most everything. the empirical ground for my assertion is that some athletes with extraordianary skills just never seem to win it all, others with similar skills seem to do nothing but win it all.

The problem there, of course, is that in science you do experiments by holding everything else constant and testing the variable you are inquiring about. But in sports, you can never hold everything else constant. You can't simply put Manning on the Patriot teams and rerun the season to see if he'd win with the same players and coaches as Brady won with. You are inferring that the cause of Manning's failure to win is Manning's inferior mental toughness as compared to Brady. But there could be independent causes - Belichek, for example. That's not to say that number of rings isn't an important piece of evidence when you are trying to figure out a player's mental ability; just that you need to evaluate all the other potential pieces of evidence too.

Posted by Al | November 21, 2006 8:11 PM

in addition to al's point, what kind of scientist, dj superflat, has us belive that we can divine whether or not vince carter cares, or whether or not barkley put everything he could to be the best player he could, or whether or not chris webber was scared?

i mean, these are perfectly commonplace assumptions that probably many sports fans would make, and they may even be true (i doubt it sincerely, but how would i know either?) but there isn't anything in the slightest empirical about them: you actually, of course, have no idea, as most fans don't, as to what is in the player's heart or mind.

Posted by howard | November 21, 2006 10:24 PM

I tend to agree with Matt's initial comment about size. Generally, having great frontcourt players is the biggest determinant in terms of winning an NBA title. Obviously the Jordan Bulls defied this rule. And one could argue both Pistons squads - the original Bad Boys and the more recent incarnation - were somewhat at odds with the rule insofar as their best players resided in the backcourt. In terms of a general rule, however, having either a dominant center (Russell, Jabbar, Shaq, Dream, Duncan) or a great overall frontcourt seems to trump having an Oscar Robertson, Allen Iverson, Jerry West, or Bernard King on your roster. And as Matt notes, great bigmen are rare by virtue of genetics.

Today's NBA is dominated by shooting guards and small forwards, but beyond Jordan, when have athletic wingmen led their teams to titles without the aid of a great big man? Certainly Kobe has struggled without Shaq. And Wade appears similarly flummoxed without the big guy around. The league is full of Iversons, Pierces, Allens, and Redds - great players with great statistics who can't seem to impact the outcome of games the way a big man can.

The reason Tim Duncan is the best player in the league (in my opinion) is because he's the only player you could put on the worst team in the league -- and that team would instantly and automatically make the playoffs. The only other guy that may be true of is Lebron. Which is why Lebron is probably the next Jordan - the rare wingman who turns the size rule on its ear.

Posted by owenz | November 22, 2006 12:42 PM

As an aside, I would say that football and basketball don't compare very well, since football players are so much more dependent on their teammates than basketball players. Having the best basketball player in the world on your team virtually guarantees you will make a strong playoff run - meanwhile the best football player on the planet will struggle mightily without a strong supporting cast.

Basketball players are just much, much easier to compare. For example, there is near-universal agreement that Wilt Chamberlain would be an NBA all-star in today's game due to his once-in-a-lifetime, freakish combination of size (7'2", 280), athleticism (they changed the rules because of him), skill (he averaged 50 for a season), and basketball creativity (he led the league in the assists). The overall package that Wilt possessed is just extraordinarily rare from a genetic perspective -- a serious person cannot argue he wouldn't be a top-3 center today. Yet seemingly smart people who admit this obvious truth will look at Bill Russell and insist that he would not be an all-star in today's NBA, despite the historic and continued prevalence of undersized front court stars like from Dennis Romdan to Ben Wallace to Charles Barkley to Dave Cowens (a 6'8" center in the era of Kareem, Chamberlain, Hayes, and Unseld).

Of course, these people are missing the point, focusing on the overall strength of the NBA while ignoring the obvious, one-to-one match-up of Russell vs. Chamberlain. All they need to do is look at the fact that Bill Russell absolutely dominated Wilt Chamberlain in their head-to-head matches, defeating Wilt's teams over and over again, in all possible conditions, while establishing himself as the smartest, most ruthless, most determined, baddest, blackest athlete of all time in the process (with the possible exception of Ali). Chamberlain could not compete with the combination of Russell's more than adequate size, Jordan-esque competive obsessiveness, and coordination/timing.

Wilt would be a star in today's game, Russell dominated Wilt, so Russell too would be start. See? Not so hard. Teammates, the overall strength of the league, and other factors all melt away when one looks at the head-to-head matchup of superstars. More recent examples also work. We know Jordan was better than Barkley not because Jordan jumped higher, or because of the state of the league, or because of his teammates - but because Jordan beat Barkley's teams, over and over. It was visible to the naked eye. Unlike Manning and Brady, who never actually face each other on the field, Jordan and Barkley went right at each other -- they dominated their respective teams to the point where the score of the game was a rough estimation of their skill as a player. Nobody with eyes could deny that Jordan was better than Barkley after watching them play each other.

My point? With NFL players, it's difficult to compare Brady and Manning - two compemporaries - because of the total unpredictability of teammates and a randomness of game in which an offensive player is totally dependent on his team's defense to win. It is easier, in fact, to compare Tim Duncan and Bill Russell...players whose careers are 40 years apart...if you just drop your preconceptions and think logically.

Posted by owenz | November 22, 2006 1:22 PM

(Only read this post if you like dead horses. Beating beaten. To death. I apologize. I really do.)

A final Bill Russell statistical argument for those who insist the league was weak and unathletic during his era. In 1965, Bill Russell lead the NBA in rebounding with 24.1 rebounds per game. In fact, he grabbed 49 boards in one game that year. So, who were his contemporaries on the rebounding leader boards for that year? Chamberlain, Jerry Lucas, Nate Thurmand, Willis Reed, Walt Bellamy, Elvin Hayes, and Dave DeBusschere:

http://www.rauzulusstreet.com/basketball/nbarecords/nbastandings1965.htm

Compare those names to current leaders like Okafor, Bosh, and Boozer:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/statistics?stat=nbarebound&league=nba&sort=totreb&season=2007

The league in 1965 was not as white, slow, and unathletic as you think. And ask yourself this: who does Dwight Howard, the league's new rebounding beast, remind you of...Kevin Garnett or Bill Russell on a modern weight training program? Howard stands out because unlike the David Robinson-inspired, 7-foot small forwards who now dominate the league, Dwight bangs down low. Kinda like Russell, Thurmand, Hayes, and Reed...

Posted by owenz | November 22, 2006 1:51 PM

One thing I have to point out:
"All they need to do is look at the fact that Bill Russell absolutely dominated Wilt Chamberlain in their head-to-head matches"
is just not true. In their head-to-head matchups, they pretty much played to a draw. Both guys were pretty similar to their career averages (no, haven't found a cite). The Celtics won because Russell was doing his job in playing Wilt to a draw, allowing his team's better supporting cast to win the game for them. Basketball is not a one-on-one game. It's definitely a point in Russell's favor that his teams usually won, but it's not decisive. Unless we can trade Wilt for Russell and play the games again, we don't know what their individual contributions were.

That said, you're right, Russell would be a star in today's NBA. I'm not sure he'd be as dominant as he was, but he'd be a perennial All-Star, probable Hall-of-Famer.

Posted by too many steves | November 22, 2006 3:13 PM

elzp pkfb cbty jxrzwy unfhce jznh yaqfne

Posted by gjuvmdix uhngmwajr | June 11, 2007 12:53 PM

azjouy tvoj xvtjkpymi exzhflt sutqdxpy xskjw dyiqvput http://www.vual.jtwgcz.com

Posted by mixd iyvwf | June 11, 2007 12:55 PM