No Balance of Power in the NBA: Trend or Problem?

The Golden State Warriors' record this season is 48-33. The Atlanta Hawks record is 37-43. If I were to ask which team is going to the playoffs, and which team will be waiting on ping-pong balls in the June draft lottery, the answer seems obvious enough. The Warriors won more games and must therefore be the better team, and the playoff team.

Ah, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. While the Warriors have had the misfortune to compile their better record against vastly superior competition in the Western Conference, the Hawks have stumbled to what, in most years would be a disappointing record, in the far less challenging Eastern Conference. And yet, even with a sub .500 record, the east is so terrible that the Hawks are the team destined for the playoffs. The Warriors, on the other hand, are already home for the summer.

This situation has sportswriters and fans across the country crying out for a change. How, they wonder, can an inferior team like the Hawks be allowed to play in the playoffs, and therefore accumulate many millions more in revenue, while a much more worthy team is left without an opponent? Worse yet, because the Hawks are in the playoffs, they will have a lower draft pick. NBA talent is typically marginal after the lottery, and given the Hawks' weak drafting history, there seems to be little hope for them to ever improve. Meanwhile, the Warriors will likely pluck one of the blue chip prospects out of the draft, improve their team, and add to the sustained dominance of the Western Conference. Surely, the NBA should restructure its playoff format to accommodate the Warriors. As a matter of fact, the Portland Trail Blazers also have a better record than Atlanta, so let's put them in the playoffs too, and we could drop Philadelphia, who at 40-41 are slightly inferior to the Blazers.

I completely understand that sometimes there is a need for change in a sport. The NFL is far better off now that the divisions have been realigned more logically (how New Orleans was ever put in a West Coast division is beyond me). And Major League Baseball has also benefited from both realignment, which allows the immensely popular Yankees-Red Sox rivalry to play out twenty times a year, and from changing the playoff format to allow four teams from each league to participate instead of simply playing a World Series between the Pennant winners from each league.

But, to change the longstanding infrastructure of a league simply because one decade has been marked by a league of parity is a little drastic. Every professional sports league goes through periods of unbalance. Major League Baseball was dominated by the National League in the 1970s and then the American League this past decade. The NFL was dominated by the NFC in the 1990s and now the AFC this decade. That's what makes sports special. Teams have the opportunity, under strong leadership and with a little luck, to build dynasties. Of course no one wants to see a 48 win team get left of out the playoffs in favor of a 37 win team, but that is part of the unpredictable nature of the sport. The fans in Atlanta haven't seen their team in the playoffs in 8 years. They must deserve it just as much as the fans of the Warriors.

For the remainder of the post, I will include two responses I've written to articles on this subject. The first comment is regarding an article entitled, "In the Playoffs, May Only the Best Teams Play," by Frank Deford on NPR. Frank discusses an alternative to the current playoff system in which the NBA adopts something more like March Madness. My second comment is a response to Chris Clarke's article, "East and West Work Fine, Thanks." Chris makes some very good points about the need for the NBA to stay the current course. You can find my response to Chris's article after my comment on Frank Deford's.

"In the Playoffs, May Only the Best Teams Play"

Frank, thanks you for your insight. Nearly everything you point out in your article rings true on so many levels. The current lopsided state of the NBA (as well as the NFL and MLB) is ridiculous. I've been waiting my whole life to see the Celtics in the playoffs, with an actual chance to win the Championship. But, now because of a terrible Eastern Conference I'm supposed to watch them open against the Hawks. PUH-lease. Give me ESPN Gamecast and I'll turn the game on if it gets close.

Something does need to be done. What? I can't say for certain. I definitely like the idea of a Round Robin playoff system, as you propose, however, as is the case with most other options, it all comes down to bringing in money. A round robin playoff system, would be great for the fans, but we have to remember that this league ultimately revolves around making money. And all the people in the world watching an exciting playoff series won't make up for the money from ticket sales and television that would have been made in those lost games.

I wish I could offer a better, more cost effective suggestion. To be honest though, I'd like it if the league went a step further. I think the biggest problem right now is that there are just too many damn teams. Back in the 70s and 80s, the league was so great because teams were DEEP. The Celtics and Lakers were literally overrun with not just All Stars, but future Hall of Famers. Now, where are we? The team with a so called "Big Three" has one sure bet Hall of Famer (Kevin Garnett) and two maybes.

If there were fewer teams, which will never happen, think of how exciting each season would be. No longer would we have to suffer through watching the Mark Madsens of the world, or seeing sub-.500 teams in the playoffs. It would only be the best of the best in a more competitive, more compacted league. I know I'm only dreaming here. Leagues have swings over decades. It's been proven through time. Someday, the East will rise again and it will be the West that everyone is lambasting. So I guess the only thing we can do is deal with it.

East and West Work Fine, Thanks

I completely agree, Chris. I’ve read a lot of articles on this subject this season, and they all eventually bring me back to the same conclusion. While it would be great if the NBA could somehow realign or restructure the league or playoffs, we have to accept that this kind of maneuver just isn’t realistic. Besides the fact that the NBA isn’t willing to give up a red cent of the money generated by the current system, changing the league around might not necessarily have such a beneficial effect anyway.

I’ve suggested in comments to other posts, and in my own blog, that the best way to make the NBA more balanced, and therefore more competitive and exciting, would be to make the league smaller. Simply put, fewer teams equals fewer bad players. But this kind of drastic change is impossible. Besides the fact that it would alienate the cities whose teams are disbanded, it would severely cut into the profits of the NBA. Sure, it would make for an exciting league. But excitement is only part of the sports watching experience.

Because that’s what the NBA is. The Experience. Mark Cuban has been an innovator who has helped change the NBA into what it currently is. It’s not just watching your favorite team. It’s feeling like you are a part of that team. Changing the playoff format would not just take away from the natural rivalries, it would basically be a slap in the face of every fan who considers himself a part of his teams’ magical playoff run at 38-44. I know I sound sarcastic here, but it’s the truth. If the NBA wants to market itself as an experience, then it needs to stay loyal to that promise.

The Hope for Banner 17: Gauging the Celtics Chances in 2008

This time last year, the Boston Celtics were coming off the worst losing streak in franchise history. For 18 consecutive games, as Paul Pierce sat on the bench, injured and disgruntled, a hodgepodge of could-bes, might-bes and never-will-bes had found new heights for futility. Doc Rivers and Danny Ainge were lampooned by local and national media, which almost unanimously called for their dismissals. And just when season that was supposed to be dedicated to the late Red Auerbach couldn't seem to get much worse, another Celtic legend, the man Magic Johnson once called "the greatest back court defender of all time," Dennis Johnson, passed away suddenly at the age of 52. It was the lowest of the low for the team synonymous with good luck, and for all of the fans that suffered alongside them. Then, a few unlucky ping pong ball bounces later, everything changed. Realizing he wasn't going to get either of the stars he wanted in the draft, Danny Ainge acted quickly, trading first for Ray Allen, one of the best shooters in league history. Then, without giving up his prized young point guard, Rajon Rondo, he traded for future NBA Hall of Fame megastar, Kevin Garnett. Overnight the Celtics were back to being relevant. The media dubbed the trio of stars headlining for the Celtics "The Big Three," and since then, the Celtics have exploded to the best record in the NBA, and the best Celtics' start since the last time a "Big Three" was in Boston. But while the Celtics' hot start is obviously the toast of the town in Boston right now, especially in lieu of the Patriots' recent collapse, it's hard not to wonder about the Celtics' actual chances come playoff time. In order to find this out, I decided to search the blogosphere. In my travels, I came across two posts that address the chances for the Celtics to win a championship. The first, on I've Made a Huge Tiny Mistake, is a post called "The Western Conference is a Tad Better Than Its Eastern Brethren." The poster discusses the current and future superiority of the Western Conference in the NBA. In my response I mostly agree with his post, choosing only to elaborate more specifically on how the Celtics stack up against the West. The second post I found, addresses whether the Celtics will be able to handle the rigors of the second half of their season. The post, by Andy Miller on Bleacher Report, is entitled, "Boston Celtics: Can They Survive the Second Half?" In my response to his post, I also agree with most of Miller's observations, and choose only to dispute his suggestion of the Celtics' need to earn the number one seed in the East. My responses to the comments can be found by clicking on the aforementioned links, but for your convenience I have also included them below.

I've Made a Huge Tiny Mistake: "The Western Conference is a Tad Better Than Its Easter Brethren"

I agree with you that the parity in the West shows its current superiority as a conference. Look no further than the Mark Stein’s NBA Power Rankings, and you can see that 8 of his top 10 teams in the league are Western Conference teams. John Hollinger’s Power Rankings are a little less Western biased, but I have trouble accepting them, because he stubbornly uses a formula so complicated Einstein might struggle to grasp it. Still, I wonder how the two dominant teams in the East, Detroit and Boston, would stack up against the West. Detroit is obviously the more experienced of the two, having won the Championship in 2004, while the trio leading Boston has a combined zero Finals appearance. That being said, I feel like this year Boston may have the better pieces to make it through the East (it’s hard to argue against three perennial superstars in the playoffs after all). Once they get to the Finals, however, it’s a different story. As if the West weren’t already strong enough, the recent flurry of trades has only made it stronger. I would like nothing more than to see the Celtics fight their way through the East and win a Championship, so that all Boston fans can forget about the Patriots. But, assuming the Celtics prove to be the best of the east and make it to the NBA Finals, I wonder how they will handle one of the Western teams with a dominant big man, teams such as Phoenix, Dallas, San Antonio, or Los Angeles. It seems, from watching the Celtics play, that unless Kendrick Perkins can somehow stay out of foul trouble, they really have no one with the size to match up. Kevin Garnett is obviously a great defensive player, all time great even, and while he could probably stay with Dirk Nowitzki, or maybe Tim Duncan (with whom he has not had historical success), I have a hard time picturing him handling someone as strong as Shaquille O’Neal, Amare Stoudemire or Andrew Bynum. You may recall the game earlier this season, when Dwight Howard pushed Garnett all over the floor, and Garnett was helpless to do much more than watch Howard dunk time and time again. I’m not saying that the Celtics can’t beat a team from the West. After watching the Super Bowl, I’ll assume anything is possible. Moreover, given the absolute dogfight that’s sure to ensue in the Western Conference playoffs, the Celtics might even have a small advantage going in to the Finals. Still, the Celtics certainly will have their work cut out for them against any of the elite Western Conference teams. And if they are truly the best of the East, then that means the rest of the East has an even tougher road ahead.

Bleacher Report: "Boston Celtics: Can They Survive the Second Half?"

If by trading the future, you mean trading away another ten years of mediocrity (assuming Al Jefferson continues to be Zach Randolph 2.0 and doesn't develop any sort of good low post defense), then yes the Celtics have mortgaged a lot for the current roster. With that said, it's impossible for the Celtics to have much regret. The Celtics are as good, if not better than most of us could have imagined before this season started, and there is obviously a new buzz and atmosphere surrounding this team not seen since the original Big Three of Bird, Parish and McHale donned Celtic green. Will they make it to the Championship? Maybe. But they'll have to go through a Detroit team that is just as good as they are, and either an Orlando team that presents obvious problems (Dwight Howard) for the Celtics, or a Cleveland team that LeBron James seems to will to win night in and night out. And that's not even addressing the Western Conference team they would face in the Finals. Because in order to get there, most of your observations will need to prove true. Foremost they need some sort of veteran point guard. While Eddie House is a nice player, and provides scoring spark off the bench, I really can't stand to see him handle the point went Rajon Rondo goes out. The Celtics need to bring in a veteran point guard like Sam Cassel or Jason Williams (I can't believe I'm calling "White Chocolate" a veteran point guard now, by the way). Kyle Lowry, as another responder already stated, is even younger (in NBA years) than Rondo, which means he is likely not the answer. After Danny (hopefully) finds a back up for Rondo, I believe the next two important things they need to do are stay healthy, which means limiting the Big Trio's minutes to under 38 per game, and keeping Brian "Veal" Scalabrine off the floor. I don't know how much I can stress the need to keep Scal off the floor. He is flat out terrible, and as long as Leon Powe, Glen Davis, Kendrick Perkins, James Posey and Kevin Garnett still have air in their lungs, Scal should never, repeat never, step on the parquet. The final point you make, which I have to dispute, is that the Celtics' need to capture the number one seed. Being the number one would definitely be beneficial, but I feel the risks outweigh the benefits. Sure, they'll get four games at home against Detroit instead of three, but as the two meetings between the teams this season have already shown, the Celtics can just as easily win in the Palace as the Pistons can win in the Garden. So assuming they don't blow their ten game lead over Orlando, the only team the Celtics may not have home court advantage against is the Pistons. And the idea of them playing in the Palace does not worry me. What does worry me, however, is the thought of them making a big push for the top seed, and wearing out Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen in the process. I'm sure both players will give everything they have come playoff time, but two things you can't change are age and injuries, and as of right now neither is on those players' side. Therefore, unless the Celtics plan to unleash the Paul Pierce show, and fizzle out in the Conference finals ala 2002, it's in their best interest to keep the Big Trio healthy until playoff time.