What Might Have Been?

Ever since two one-sided deals sent Kevin Garnett to Boston and Pau Gasol to Los Angeles, I've been thinking about how pleased the NBA central office must be about the prospect of reviving the storied Lakers-Celtics rivalry with a meeting between two historic large market franchises in the NBA finals. It occurs to me, however, that there's a very plausible scenario in which the league gets something catastrophic like a New Orleans—Detroit matchup. Especially out West, we've got closely matched teams in quality and huge gaps in marketability between squads like LA, Phoenix, Houston (think of the China market -- and, yes, they've learned to love T-Mac over there) and laggards like New Orleans and Utah. Look for conspiracy theories to abound if the officiating in the playoffs seems to smile upon the more marketable squads.

Photo by Flickr user TheMikeLee used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

i assume by the photograph that this post refers to basket-ball.

Posted by david m. | April 8, 2008 2:27 PM

I suppose Kobe has alienated the "young, impressionable girl bent spread eagle over a sofa back" market. There's always that to consider.

Posted by steve duncan | April 8, 2008 2:31 PM

NBA officiating is plain horrible. And it becomes particularly excruciating during the playoffs. The NBA needs to do two things:

1. Eradicate star treatment. No automatic foul calls favoring LeBron, Kobe, DWade, or whoever. Everyone is equal.

2. Penalize flopping.

Posted by blah | April 8, 2008 2:32 PM

And the Knicks are scheduled to be good again in 2052.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 8, 2008 2:41 PM

Blah's 2nd idea would be especially good (the 1st one doesn't have a chance in hell; every league gives its stars preferential treatment). Soccer hands out yellow cards for blatant diving; why not give technical fouls for blatant flopping?

Posted by randomliberal | April 8, 2008 2:44 PM

Not even an aside to the great final in the NCAA tourney? Think the two temas from small marekts had an impact on viewership last night?

Posted by Tiparillo | April 8, 2008 2:48 PM

Soccer hands out yellow cards for blatant diving . . .

Bwah-ha-ha! That there is some funny stuff. Really.

As for flopping in basketball? It is punished. In pretty much the same way as the yellow cards --- by calling a foul. This also has pretty much the same effect as the yellow cards: absolutely none.

Posted by C.S. | April 8, 2008 2:51 PM

@randomliberal

Good point, there is no flopping in soccer.

Posted by crack | April 8, 2008 2:55 PM

Last I saw, there was very little correlation between Finals ratings and the size of the teams' home markets, at least once you controlled for the Jordan effect.

By the way, the Pistons have done fine as a Finals team ratings-wise. Their '88 and '89 Finals matchups with the Lakers were the second and third most watched Finals of the pre-Jordan Era ('87 was first), although their 4-1 beating of the Blazers in 1990 (including a three-game sweep in Portland) saw a dropoff. Their improbable championship run in 2004 resulted in signficantly better Finals ratings than 2002 (Lakers-76ers) and 2003 (Spurs-Nets), but the ratings fell back again in 2005--confirming, by the way, that the truest Finals ratings poison is the San Antonio Spurs.

So, people don't mind watching the Pistons in the Finals ... at least when their opponent is the Lakers.

Posted by DTM | April 8, 2008 3:02 PM

Although you're now the second former Bostonian to claim that the nation is dying for a Lakers-Celtics matchup (Bill Simmons being the other), I'm not buying it. The Lakers are despised everywhere but LA; the Celtics are despised everywhere but Boston; without Magic, Bird etc. to sell the supposedly storied rivalry, I'm just not sure why the rest of the country is supposed to find this so endlessly fascinating. Detroit and Chicago are big media markets, too, and the Pistons and Bulls had a very heated rivalry back in their Isiah and MJ heydeys, but you didn't see anyone getting all google-eyed last year over the prospect of them butting heads in the Eastern Conference finals. Ratings in the NBA are driven by the players, not the jerseys.

Posted by bob w | April 8, 2008 3:02 PM

Uh, Bob, we now NBA ratings are driven by the players.

But the Celtics just happen to have KG and the Lakers just happen to have Kobe Bryant, two of the three best and most popular players in the NBA (LBJ being the third).

So what was your point again exactly?

Because you are essentially making Matt's point.

OF COURSE the Lakers/Celtics would be a ratings bonanza for the NBA!

To think otherwise is...well, it means you're just not thinking.

Posted by Bob W Makes No Sense | April 8, 2008 3:06 PM

Soccer hands out yellow cards for blatant diving . . .

Perhaps in theory. Not so much in practice.

Besides, that's the wrong approach anyway. It's not easy for a ref, even with the help of linesmen, to see everything at every angle and know for sure whether someone was diving. Sure, it's easy for us to see with multiple replies, but he doesn't have that capability.

If FIFA truly wanted to eradicate diving and the agonizing painful writhing that goes with it, they would take the ref out of the equation, and they'd start handing down suspensions after the fact. Review every game. Start handing down one to multiple game suspensions for particularly egregious offenders. It's that simple. The fact that they don't do it is a pretty good indication that they simply don't care.

The dumbest in this area (diving) is the NHL. Sure, they call diving penalties, but they're almost always matched by an opposing foul. One player gets two minutes for tripping, one gets two minutes for diving. I HATE that. If a guy is legitimately tripped, he didn't dive. If he dove, he wasn't tripped. It's a cop-out. If a guy was legitimately hauled down, I don't really care if he embellishes. That doesn't change the fact that another guy committed the actual penalty.

Posted by Seitz | April 8, 2008 3:09 PM

"Something catastrophic" like a New Orleans-Detroit matchup?

Oy, oy, oy. Can't we mature a bit as sports fans and realize that it isn't all about the supposed 'glamour' teams on the coasts? I'd love to see New Orleans in a seven-game series, and I live in New York.

Posted by eagleye | April 8, 2008 3:23 PM

You say there will be fodder for conspiracy theorists if favorable calls lead to a Celtics/Lakers final?

Um...isn't the fact that two incredibly lopsided trades that no sane GM would make resulted in the Celtics and Lakers becoming two of the league's powerhouse teams rather than also-rans suspicious enough? Did this just happen to occur at a time when the NBA was facing scandals and declining popularity?

Posted by Paul | April 8, 2008 3:24 PM

You say there will be fodder for conspiracy theorists if favorable calls lead to a Celtics/Lakers final?

Um...isn't the fact that two incredibly lopsided trades that no sane GM would make resulted in the Celtics and Lakers becoming two of the league's powerhouse teams rather than also-rans suspicious enough? Did this just happen to occur at a time when the NBA was facing scandals and declining popularity?

Posted by Paul | April 8, 2008 3:24 PM

Screw what is good for the NBA. I don't own any NBA stock.

Conspiracy theories should already abound where LA gets an allstar by giving up a sack of potatoes and Boston gets Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett without giving up their best player. Insane.

Posted by MP | April 8, 2008 3:27 PM

"the Celtics are despised everywhere but Boston"

Really? They shouldn't be. The team plays a good-looking game of basketball and the players are a stand-up bunch. How can you not like Garnett, Pierce, Allen, Rondo?

Just last night I actually had a nightmare that we were forced to go back to 1990s Heat-Knicks pound the ball into the floor basketbrawl. Shudder.

Personally, I'm hoping for Celtics-Suns or Celtics-Jazz, which would be the most aesthetically pleasing matchup, but whatever.

As for which trade was more lopsided - it's not even close. Al Jefferson is a legitimate 20-10 guy with a long future in the league, and the Cs also gave up picks and role players for Garnett. When the trade happened, a lot of people in Boston moaned about how the Celtics got rolled. They were wrong, but you could actually think it was true without being insane.

The Lakers got Gasol for *nothing*. They actually unloaded a headache. Nobody, but nobody, thought for even a second that the Lakers got a bad deal.

Posted by Lucky | April 8, 2008 3:39 PM

Those conspiracy theories will have to overcome the
facts mentioned by DTM. The SA Spurs are ratings poison,
yet Phoenix fans would argue that the conspiracy
was to put the SPURS in the finals rather than the
(exiting, high paced) SUNS last spring.

Occams razor starts to look pretty rusty.

Posted by catclub | April 8, 2008 3:44 PM

This reminds me of Kevin Drum's exploration of the food pyramid.

Meanwhile, bodies are exploding all over Iraq, "Big Media" enshrines McCain and "Gores" first Clinton and then Obama, and taxpayers are in the process of bailing out predatory lenders once again.

I guess journalism is just another way to make a buck after all.

Posted by dick tuck | April 8, 2008 3:51 PM

To answer, um, Bob W Makes No Sense:

Two things:

First, I took Matt to be making the argument that the NBA is hoping for Lakers v. Celtics because they're the Lakers and the Celtics, not because it's Kobe v. Garnett, or whatever. I don't think I was misreading him, or others who've made this argument, by responding to the idea that there's something special about the matchup of these two franchises that will drive ratings up. I sure don't remember there being a lot of people claiming that a Lakers v. Timberwolves matchup would clean up in the ratings back when that still would have been a Kobe (and Shaq!) v. Garnett series.

Second, to answer the argument that you're making: Lakers v. Celtics has some star power, sure, but nothing that dwarfs other possible combinations.

Garnett is a great player, but he's hardly a headline attraction. No one outside of Boston is tuning in just to watch KG do his thing. Same goes for Paul Pierce and Ray Allen.

Kobe is a star, but a problematic one, since most of the casual NBA fans probably associate him as much with his legal troubles as with his brilliance on the court. There's a reason that he has so few endorsements for a player of his caliber; he's a niche product.

I see no reason to think that Lakers v. Celtics will do a lot better in the ratings than, say, Suns v. Celtics, or Suns v. Pistons, or Lakers v. Cavs.

Posted by bob w | April 8, 2008 3:54 PM

Assuming the NBA only cares about the size of TV markets involved and "star power," what would be the most disasterous plausible matchup. How about Utah - Orlando? At least with SA you get the defending champs, N.O. you get inspirational lower 9th ward stories, Phoenix has Shaq, Dallas has Dirk, LA Kobe, and Houston is the 4th largest TV market AFAIK.

Posted by Blue Moon | April 8, 2008 4:23 PM

In what strange world is it a lopsided trade to exchange a 31 year old superstar with the largest contract in the league for a 23 year old very-soon-to-be/should-already-be superstar (Jefferson) who makes 20M dollars less, two solid rotation players (Telfair, Gomes), an 11.6M expiring contract (Ratliff), and two first round picks?

Explain.

Posted by Nicholas Gonzalez | April 8, 2008 4:27 PM

In what strange world is it a lopsided trade to exchange a 31 year old superstar with the largest contract in the league for a 23 year old very-soon-to-be/should-already-be superstar (Jefferson) who makes 20M dollars less, two solid rotation players (Telfair, Gomes), an 11.6M expiring contract (Ratliff), and two first round picks?

Explain.

Posted by Nicholas G | April 8, 2008 4:27 PM

I agree with Nicholas G. Of course it is lopsided this year. That's why they refer to the Celts as "mortgaging their future." I do think the T-Wolves could have gotten more elsewhere, but in the long run, Jefferson is going to be an incredibly productive player, if not an all-star. Now as far as the Gasol trade, well, that's just fucked up.

Posted by Craig Greg | April 8, 2008 4:37 PM

Media Markets, by size:
1) NYC
2) LA
3) Chicago
4) Philly
5) DFW
6) San Fran
7) Boston
8) Atlanta
9) DC
10) Houston

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_television_stations_in_North_America_by_media_market

Posted by redstripe | April 8, 2008 4:37 PM

Have to agree with several of the folks above. The steal factor in the Laker and Celtic trades is not even close. Jefferson is going to play for the next ten years at a high, maybe all-star, level and Ratliff is getting quality minutes for a championship level team. On the steal scale this is heavily weighted to the Lakers.

Posted by DaytonDem | April 8, 2008 4:52 PM

How about Utah - Orlando?

Dwight Howard and Deron Williams? I'd watch that.

My vote would be for San Antonio - Toronto. I don't think anyone beyond Tim Duncan's mom would want to watch that.

Posted by ntr Fausto Carmona | April 8, 2008 5:31 PM

Nicholas G,

here is one perspective on why it was an uneven trade:

http://dberri.wordpress.com/2007/08/07/george-costanza-danny-ainge-and-are-the-timberwolves-better-off-without-garnett/

Posted by Anno | April 8, 2008 5:37 PM

It's a great trade for the Celts, because they HAD to make a splash, especially Ainge. Sure, their window is short, but at least there is a window. There certainly is no guarantee Jefferson will ever be good enough to lead a team to the Finals.

As far as the Lakers go, something was really fishy about that one. Stern would look into it had he not orchestrated. Just kidding....or not.

Posted by Grady Sizemore | April 8, 2008 6:18 PM

The Boston media market is irrelevant to the NBA. If the Red Sox don't start winning, no one in Boston will watch the Celts -- they'll all kill themselves and if the Sawx start winning no one will watch the Celts because they'll be watching the Sawx.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | April 8, 2008 6:27 PM

The SA Spurs are ratings poison,
yet Phoenix fans would argue that the conspiracy
was to put the SPURS in the finals rather than the
(exiting, high paced) SUNS last spring.

Yeah conspiracy is what did it as opposed to say oh, 6 years of domination by the Spurs over the Suns.

With regards to favoritism I can perhaps see it in the Eastern conference where Boston is a feel good story. A truly moribund franchise with a shot at the crown. In the West how would Stern pick. The rejuivanted Lakers over the near ran suns? The Rockets (chinese connection)over Dallas (Europe). There are a lot of good stories to pick from, from his point of view.

Posted by Drew | April 8, 2008 8:10 PM

Too often people think "marquee matchup"="what sportscasters want to talk/write about." Now, there's some overlap because a matchup that creates a lot of sportscaster buzz gets more general attention. But the general concept is overrated.

There's a strong component of that in the Celts/Lakers matchup. Many sportswriters grew up watching Bird-Magic, and they consider that the height of NBA awesomeness. I'm not sure your average fan cares all that much. But the breathless excitement of the sports journalists will boost the buzz factor some and help the ratings.

Posted by Brian | April 8, 2008 8:35 PM

He is a great player. Most of my friends on 'M ixedfriends.com' love him very much. It is a free inter-racial dating club. Maybe you want to check it out.

Posted by Emma | April 8, 2008 10:23 PM

Emma 10:23pm

Personalized spam in a blog comment?!?! I haven't seen that before. Nice work.

Posted by nbt | April 8, 2008 10:59 PM

At least the past few years they've started calling traveling. It used to drive me insane how Jordan could practically grab a rebound and just run across the court and dunk it without any call.

All you bitches are just mad that the Celtics own you. After sucking for so many years, they actually have a team together. Also, Doc Rivers actually answers e-mails from fans, so he rules.

Rondo is surprisingly fun to watch and will create more of a nationwide fanbase, especially if Boston makes it to the Finals.

Posted by Reality Man | April 9, 2008 12:41 AM

Spurs vs. Celtics

Posted by Mark A. Gaughan | April 9, 2008 6:47 AM

Let it be NO vs. Detroit. More basketball for me!
(I don't see that happening, but I'd watch every game if it does.)

Posted by cloudspitter | April 9, 2008 7:49 AM

Is there any major American sports league more likely to fix an event to guarantee viewers and revenue than the NBA?

The biggest joke I ever saw outside of pro wrestling was in 1993 when the Seattle Sonics were in the Western Conference Finals and lost to the Phoenix Suns in a surreal game seven. From the opening tip-off the officals called dozens upon dozens of fouls on the Sonics. The NBA desperately wanted a Barkley v. Jordan finals and by damn they got it!

It's been rather hard for me to take pro basketball seriously ever since that game since it was obvious the game was fixed.

Posted by Richardson | April 9, 2008 11:00 AM