Big Market Team Fallacy

[Joey Zaza]

One of the owners arguments for a hard cap or increased luxury tax has been to allow small market teams to compete with big market teams...allegedly, the former system allowed big market teams to sign more players and keep small market teams non-competitive.

I get that with Baseball and its easily demonstrated...see NYY. But basketball, the "dominant" teams since the 1999 agreement.

LAL (big market)
SA (small market)
Bos (larger mid-market)
Det (larger mid-market)
Dall (larger mid-market)
Cavs (mid-market)
Heat (mid-market)

Seems like a pretty healthy bell curve of 1 big market, 1 small market (both teams being the two most dominant teams over this stretch) and mostly mid-market teams. Plus, since 1999 monster markets NYK/LAC have been bad and largest mid-market Chi has been basically good.

In fact, since 1999 super-small markets Kings, Wolves, Nets, Bucks, have all had 2-3 years of very good -conference finals type - stretches.

I get trying to change things to make these teams more profitable, but I do not get changing things to help small teams be more competitive. They seem perfectly decently competitive (except the Bobs who need to be destroyed)

[KevinNYC]

One of the owners arguments for a hard cap or increased luxury tax has been to allow small market teams to compete with big market teams...allegedly, the former system allowed big market teams to sign more players and keep small market teams non-competitive.

I get that with Baseball and its easily demonstrated...see NYY. But basketball, the "dominant" teams since the 1999 agreement.

LAL (big market)
SA (small market)
Bos (larger mid-market)
Det (larger mid-market)
Dall (larger mid-market)
Cavs (mid-market)
Heat (mid-market)

Seems like a pretty healthy bell curve of 1 big market, 1 small market (both teams being the two most dominant teams over this stretch) and mostly mid-market teams. Plus, since 1999 monster markets NYK/LAC have been bad and largest mid-market Chi has been basically good.

In fact, since 1999 super-small markets Kings, Wolves, Nets, Bucks, have all had 2-3 years of very good -conference finals type - stretches.

I get trying to change things to make these teams more profitable, but I do not get changing things to help small teams be more competitive. They seem perfectly decently competitive (except the Bobs who need to be destroyed)

My guess is Boston games are broadcast throughout New England and the third largest market in the NBA or tied with Chicago.

I think the Miami thing scared them. How are they going to be able to bring good free agents to say Memphis or Utah?

[Knicksfever2010]

One of the owners arguments for a hard cap or increased luxury tax has been to allow small market teams to compete with big market teams...allegedly, the former system allowed big market teams to sign more players and keep small market teams non-competitive.

I get that with Baseball and its easily demonstrated...see NYY. But basketball, the "dominant" teams since the 1999 agreement.

LAL (big market)
SA (small market)
Bos (larger mid-market)
Det (larger mid-market)
Dall (larger mid-market)
Cavs (mid-market)
Heat (mid-market)

Seems like a pretty healthy bell curve of 1 big market, 1 small market (both teams being the two most dominant teams over this stretch) and mostly mid-market teams. Plus, since 1999 monster markets NYK/LAC have been bad and largest mid-market Chi has been basically good.

In fact, since 1999 super-small markets Kings, Wolves, Nets, Bucks, have all had 2-3 years of very good -conference finals type - stretches.

I get trying to change things to make these teams more profitable, but I do not get changing things to help small teams be more competitive. They seem perfectly decently competitive (except the Bobs who need to be destroyed)

Its funny because when lebron was a free agent, everybody KILLED the thought that new york was the leading contender because it was a 'big market'... the critics cited, "in this age of internet etc... lebron didnt need to go to madison ave. to make money".... but when it comes to owners making money, they can only make money in 'big markets'? SOMEBODY IS LYING!

[Kblaze8855]

Boston, Seattle, and Denver have around the same populations. Not sure when peoplestarted pretending Boston was some NY/La/chicago or even Dallas type place. If you are gonna credit them for the entire northeast...ok. But Boston itself isnt some super huge city. Its like 13th 14th biggest among NBA cities and LA and NY have 2 teams now so...15th-16th far as market for teams.

[Sarcastic]

My guess is Boston games are broadcast throughout New England and the third largest market in the NBA or tied with Chicago.

I think the Miami thing scared them. How are they going to be able to bring good free agents to say Memphis or Utah?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_o...tistical_Areas

Boston as a metro area is 10th. I would rank it as mid, with the top 9 all being 5 million+ as the large markets.

[eliteballer]

You dont look at city size, you look at metropolitan area.

[Joey Zaza]

My guess is Boston games are broadcast throughout New England and the third largest market in the NBA or tied with Chicago.

I think the Miami thing scared them. How are they going to be able to bring good free agents to say Memphis or Utah?

Mem/Utah won't be able to bring in big FA's. They never have.

By my count there are three ways to get players: trade, FA, and draft. Assuming that big market teams are typically good (a fallacy but its also a fallacy that a small market can't afford a big time player) the draft favors small market teams. The draft is particularly helpful because you get a guy cheap for 3 and you can really lock him up for 7. As a result the good big market teams don't get a chance to overpay him until the small market has really had an ample opportunity.

Trades don't benefit either small or big teams, just good management.

FA should benefit big market teams--but Miami just won big in a mid-market, mid-market Atl just signed a big FA.

Moreover, other than Shaq choosing LAL and Amare/Melo choosing NYK (prior ot that since '99 NYK's big FA win was Curry), what FA sweepstakes have been won by big markets. Nash chose Phx (sort a big probably smaller than Dall). Chi's only big FA acquisition has been Boozer. LAL drafted Kobe and used the Bird rights (that all teams have) to keep him, drafted Bynum, and traded for Gasol and Odom. Bos traded for KG, Allen and PP.

Webber was traded to and then signed with Sac, KG signed multiple contracts in Minn, Duncan has stayed with SA.

I see no evidence that big market teams have had any FA signing advantage under the 99 agreement.

[Sarcastic]

You dont look at city size, you look at metropolitan area.

The point of the thread is correct though. Market size means nothing when it comes to winning. The Lakers don't win because they are in LA. The Lakers win because they have great management. If LA meant anything to their success, then one would presume the Clippers would be at least a tad bit successful.

Also if market size mattered when it comes to free agency, one should also presume that the Knicks would have landed some decent free agents in the last 34 years since free agency started. But they haven't. Being in NY hasn't done anything to make the Knicks a better franchise.

[DMAVS41]

there aren't absolutes. its not just about size. its not just about money. its not just about management. its not just about a desirable location. its about everything.

it is absolutely an advantage to be the gm of the Lakers than it is to be the gm of the timberwolves. i can't believe people actually debate this.

if you could clone someone and have the exact same person manage the lakers and wolves, the guy managing the lakers would have more success over time. end of story.

that doesn't mean its impossible to compete as a small market team, it just means its harder. you don't have the spending power or the ability attract free agents. if you sign a bad contract...it hurts a lot more and for a lot longer. same with missing in the draft.

i'm shocked that people here actually think the location, size, and amount of money a team spends play no factor in success. its absurd.

[Joey Zaza]

there aren't absolutes. its not just about size. its not just about money. its not just about management. its not just about a desirable location. its about everything.

it is absolutely an advantage to be the gm of the Lakers than it is to be the gm of the timberwolves. i can't believe people actually debate this.
...
i'm shocked that people here actually think the location, size, and amount of money a team spends play no factor in success. its absurd.

The advantage of the LAL is not so much about size and location, its the fact that they are the LAKERS. Its about Magic, and Kareem, and Wilt, and West and Worthy and now Shaq and Kobe. If you grew up watching basketball, there is an excellent excellent chance that one of your heroes played for the LAL and as such are likely to want to go there-part of the legacy. We all know D.Howard belongs there--because D.Howard follows Wilt-KAJ-Shaq. Same can be said for the Celts.

I simply don't buy the spending power angle...all teams are allowed to spend the same maximum and the same minimum. The gap is like 25% of the total cap. Even teams that go over are just barely over. Outside of IT's NYK, the most over team this year was team's go 10 over the cap.

A team having the resources to go over the cap is not market dependent...Port's owners have destroyed the cap in prior years, as has smaller Dall and current tiny market SAS. Conversely, NY has spent three years working its way under the cap and had its best season in the last 10 with its least expensvie team.

Certain teams are more cap conscience than others, and maybe market has something to do with it, but it usually has more to do with the owners, their willingness to spend and approximation of the team's chances, i.e. Indy is cap concience, but their Smits/Miller/Jax and their Artest/S.Jax/JO'n team were over the cap.

[Sarcastic]

there aren't absolutes. its not just about size. its not just about money. its not just about management. its not just about a desirable location. its about everything.

it is absolutely an advantage to be the gm of the Lakers than it is to be the gm of the timberwolves. i can't believe people actually debate this.

if you could clone someone and have the exact same person manage the lakers and wolves, the guy managing the lakers would have more success over time. end of story.

that doesn't mean its impossible to compete as a small market team, it just means its harder. you don't have the spending power or the ability attract free agents. if you sign a bad contract...it hurts a lot more and for a lot longer. same with missing in the draft.

i'm shocked that people here actually think the location, size, and amount of money a team spends play no factor in success. its absurd.

Since you think there is an advantage in being the Lakers GM, you must also think that the Clippers GM also has the same exact advantage. Is that correct? Basically you are telling me the Lakers advantage is derived from their city, and not their owner's desire to be the best?

[KevinNYC]

Boston, Seattle, and Denver have around the same populations. Not sure when peoplestarted pretending Boston was some NY/La/chicago or even Dallas type place. If you are gonna credit them for the entire northeast...ok. But Boston itself isnt some super huge city. Its like 13th 14th biggest among NBA cities and LA and NY have 2 teams now so...15th-16th far as market for teams.

That's why I mentioned New England, not just Boston. My in-laws live closer to NY than Boston in CT and they get all the Patriots/Red Sox/Celtics game local.

No need to pretend. It's the facts. You're confusing city population with media market population. Denver and Seattle are surrounded by nothing compared to the density surrounding Boston.

If you look at major league baseball's blackout policy for Boston, it's 6 entire states from CT to Maine

According to Wikipedia Boston is the 5th largest sport market behind

NYC
LA
Chicago
Baltimore-Washington

Seattle is 14th and Denver is 19th.

I would bet that ad time on a Celtics game is way more expensive than on a Wizards game.

[kentatm]

According to Wikipedia Boston is the 5th largest sport market behind

link?

I was under the impression that the Dallas/Fort Worth market had moved into 5th just ahead of the San Fran/Oakland/San Jose market. That would leave Boston no greater than 7th.

[SCdac]

part of it is smart drafting and running a business well... not necessarily attracting big name free agents every season to the team because it's such a big sports market... Think of the Spurs. Had they not drafted Tim Duncan , Parker, and Ginobili... does their huge budget and ability to spend freely really make up for it? .... part of being a dominant team is having dominant players, and part of having dominant players is getting lucky in the draft.

[Joey Zaza]

That's why I mentioned New England, not just Boston. My in-laws live closer to NY than Boston in CT and they get all the Patriots/Red Sox/Celtics game local.

No need to pretend. It's the facts. You're confusing city population with media market population. Denver and Seattle are surrounded by nothing compared to the density surrounding Boston.

If you look at major league baseball's blackout policy for Boston, it's 6 entire states from CT to Maine

According to Wikipedia Boston is the 5th largest sport market behind

NYC
LA
Chicago
Baltimore-Washington

Seattle is 14th and Denver is 19th.

I would bet that ad time on a Celtics game is way more expensive than on a Wizards game.

Cast the net of BIG MARKET as broadly as you want...you aren' going to find any FA dominance by any team under the 99 agreement. The two most dominant teams over that span (LAL/SAS) are a big big market team and a small market team. The third dominant team (Dall) falls squarely in the middle. The biggest of the big market teams that spent the most money of everyone was also the biggest flop over that span (NYK). and under the '99 agreement we've had excellent small market teams in Sac, Minn, Mil, NJ, excellent mid-market teams Det, Cle, Phx.

In fact, even with the LAL/SAS dominance, since '99 we've had champs in LA, SA, Det, Bos, Dall, Mia and finalists from Cle, NJ, Orl, Ind, Phi, NYK...that's 12 different teams -nearly half-the-league in the FINALS over 12 years. Phx-Sac-Port also had really terriffic teams that fell on bad luck over the stretch.

There is no parity problem in the NBA.