The Rest of the Story

Last Tuesday (Nov. 25), I ran a piece about the NBA’s television ratings, wherein I questioned the merits of the previously linked Nielsen story which raved about improved NBA ratings.

My quibble was in regard to the way in which the data was presented. Rather than list all the teams’ ratings, it only listed the top ten, a completely flawed methodology. As I argued last week, how can you say the league’s ratings are improved when you only tell us half of the story?

Well, consider this the other half of the story.

Thanks to an anonymous commenter with access to local Nielsen ratings, here is the whole enchilada. Listed are the teams, and the percentage change in their ratings relative to last season. Note that these ratings are only for local broadcasts, and do not include ESPN, TNT, ABC, or whomever.

Hornets, 163%
Cavs, 105%
Hawks, 93%
Blazers, 44%
Sixers, 14%
Wizards, 11%
Grizzlies, 10%
Knicks, 10%
Lakers, 9%
T-Wolves, 6%
Pistons, 5%
Bulls, 1%

Nets, 0%

Rockets, -8%
Warriors, -15%
Celtics, -18%
Nuggets, -22%
Pacers, -23%
Magic, -24%
Bucks, -24%
Heat, -24%
Spurs, -26%
Suns, -38%
Mavericks, -54%
Clippers, -60%

Missing: OKC, Charlotte, Sacramento, Toronto, Jazz

Let’s assume Oklahoma City’s ratings are better than the Sonics’ (for the sake of Clay Bennett’s mental health, they better be). And, let’s assume the Raptors and Jazz are also doing decently. I think we can also assume that the Hornets and Kings are seeing lower numbers than before, simply because that’s what their attendance figures would indicate.

Regardless of the missing numbers, that’s a pretty whopping indictment of how popular the league is. The argument that attendance is down but ratings are up? Hogwash.

There are four teams with an increase of 20 points or more, but there are nine with decreases of 20 points or more (if you include the missing five teams, the numbers might change to five increases and ten or eleven decreases). The Boston Celtics – World Champs, etc, etc, - have seen an 18% decline in their ratings. The Mavericks are looking at a drop of nearly half from last season.

Now, there are rebuttals to this argument. For one thing, the season is still early and the NBA will obviously do better after the NFL and college football are in the rear-view mirror. Plus, the really meaningful games (and concurrent improved ratings) don’t occur until the spring.

Still, I think it’s safe to say that anyone who argues that the NBA is sailing along just fine, thank you, is burying his head in the sand.

Let’s face it, folks, if your best argument is that you’re more popular than the NHL, well, that’s not much of an argument.

Alright, Then

You know the hackneyed expression, "Oh, no he didn't!"

I think that applies here.

Oklahoma City, I'm not hatin' on you, honestly. But, man, when you're using stock footage of a group of four people ambling to your arena to show how hyped your city is for the NBA, and when your singer has to read the lyrics from his cell phone, well, maybe you just ought to go back to the drawing board on that one.

War "Not in Our House."

[courtesy of Bend it Like Bennett.]

NBA v GDP

Here’s an unusual question for you – what sort of relationship, if any, exists between NBA attendance and the US economy?

The reflexive answer would be a strong one. Naturally, when the economy struggles, people cut back on entertainment expenses, such as season tickets, luxury suites, Danny Fortson jerseys, you know, big-ticket items.

With that in mind, here are a couple of graphs which chart that relationship. To accommodate two disparate figures, I have listed two items:

1. The yearly percentage change in average attendance at an NBA game
2. The yearly percentage change in US GDP

For the Econ majors out there – I hear you. GDP is a crass measurement of economic activity. It fails to account for any number of items in day-to-day life and has been habitually adjusted by the government to hide deficiencies in economic progress. I get it. But, all that being said, it is the common measuring stick for the economy in the US, so let’s use it anyways.

Shown below is the data from 1963-2008.

As you can see, there is more than just a passing relationship between the two sets of numbers but, when viewed from this distance, it’s somewhat tenuous. However, as time has marched on, you can see that : 1) the two numbers have developed a stronger relationship, and, 2) that the NBA is much less prone to year-over-year swings in attendance growth now than in the past.

For example, from 1963 to 1993, there were seven instances of a yearly change in attendance greater than 10%. From 1994 to 2008, there were zero instances of that happening. What caused the decline in wild swings?

I think there are a couple of reasons:

1. The league has grown more popular. Up until the late 1970s, the league was such a marginal entity the NBA Finals were shown on tape delay. Since the days of Magic and Bird (and MJ), that’s no longer the case. The league has reached a somewhat consistent level of popularity, and is unlikely to repeat its huge increases (and decreases) in attendance.

2. Stadiums are much closer to capacity now, limiting the ability of the league to experience large levels of growth. Any increases now would be marginal, short of selling seats on top of the backboards or staging a “Winter Classic” at the Rose Bowl.

But back to the point of this story – what can we learn from previous GDP downturns? Do they have an effect on the NBA’s attendance?

It’s difficult to say, but looking at the numbers for the past two years, there is a very strong relationship between the decrease in GDP and the decrease in NBA attendance. (See enlarged chart below)


More than the relationship between the league and GDP, these charts show us that the league has essentially stagnated since 1997. In the decade since the strike which wiped out the 1999 season, the league has registered either negative or marginally better attendance figures every season.

As an illustration of this, from 1980 until 1999 the NBA posted a yearly attendance increase of more than 2% no fewer than twelve times. Do you know how many times they have matched that number since then?

Zero.

Which goes back to my point that the league is at a standstill. As I see it, there are two possibilities for the current set-up: Continued stagnation or decline. With the recession in full swing, it seems much more likely to me that – at least for the time being – decline is the more likely option. For those who wonder why the NBA is working so hard internationally to “grow the game” (and, yes, I, too, despise that phrase), perhaps this sheds some light. Perhaps the NBA has realized that any future growth for their sport will have to come outside the US borders, and that the American populace just doesn’t have any room in its belly for more sports.

[Data for this story was culled from the Bureau of Economic Analysts and the Association for Professional Basketball Research.]

The Outlaws

Just wondering, with Seattle sans basketball at the moment, and with Stephone Marbury close to being a former Knick, how about we prevail upon Steve Ballmer to make our own team, Harlem Globetrotter-style? No set schedule, no league, just a group of fellas out havin' fun. Just think of it …

PG: Stephon Marbury
SG: Bonzi Wells
SF: Darius Miles
PF: Juwan Howard
C: Scot Pollard

Bench: Ruben Patterson, Jeff McInnis, Danny Fortson

Coach: PJ Carlesimo
GM: Bob Whitsitt

Sure, it might not win many games, but it would a helluva lot of fun to watch. In fact, a very good 1980s movie could be made on just that premise (starring, of course, Chuck Norris as the coach). Heck, do you think any NBA team would want to go into battle against a this group of guys, knowing full well they've got nothing to lose? After all, the only thing scarier than Danny Fortson on a 3-year contract is Danny Fortson on a 3-week contract.

Free chalupas to everyone if the Sonics get more than 5 technicals!

Turkey Day Numbers

Given the state of affairs in NBA attendance this year, I thought we should take a quick look at how the league fared over the course of the four-day holiday weekend.

Thanksgiving means turkey, mashed potatoes, and basketball – at least to NBA fans, anyways. While it could be argued that Christmas Day is the start of the NBA season, the NFL is winding down, you get a couple of marquee games to watch, Thanksgiving is also a good time to gauge the temperature of the league.

So, how did the NBA do this past weekend? First, the raw numbers.

Thanksgiving 2008 – 17,687 avg., 91% capacity
Thanksgiving 2007 – 17184 avg., 89% capacity

That’s a fair improvement, especially when you look at how the overall numbers have gone this season. However, it could be argued that the Seattle/Oklahoma City returns might skew the numbers unfairly, so here’s how it would look if Sonic-Thunder were removed from the equation (and, yes, I agree, Sonic-Thunder sounds like a nifty 1987 band; can we get Sammy Hagar to sing lead?):

sans Sonic-Thunder
Thanksgiving 2008 – 17667 avg., 90% capacity
Thanksgiving 2007 – 17486 avg., 90% capacity

That narrows the gap a bit, but even a crusty old grump such as myself would have to admit that the league is at least doing as well this year as last.

Another way to view the numbers is to have a breakdown of % capacities:

90%+: 17 (2007), 21 (2008)
80-90%: 4 (2007), 3 (2008)
70-80%: 5 (2007), 2 (2008)
60-70%: 3 (2007), 3 (2008)

see chart below for complete breakdowns

Again, the nod goes to this year. This is an admittedly small sample size (29 games in total), and doesn’t take into account who was playing, weather, etc.

But, for a quick sampling of tastes from last year to this year, it gives us some insight anyways. For once, let me say, a pat on the back to the league for keeping its head above-water in difficult times.

Happy Thanksgiving

From your friends at Supersonicsoul.

Tuned In, Or Not?

One of the commenters to our story about the NHL vs NBA attendance debate brought up a point in regard to television ratings - namely, that NBA ratings are increasing over last season.

Seemingly, this is a fly in the ointment for the argument that the NBA is struggling right now. Or is it?

As evidence, the commenter pointed to this article from Nielsen. On the surface, it seems to indicate some rosy figures for the league. To wit:

2008-09 Season vs. 2007-08 Season Ratings, % Change
New Orleans, 163%
Cleveland, 109%
Atlanta, 97%
Portland, 44%
Orlando, 26%
New York, 17%
L.A. Lakers, 14%
Washington, 12%
Philadelphia, 10%
Memphis, 10%

Anyone else notice something missing from that picture? That is to say, what about the other 23 teams? If the top 10 on your list includes Memphis and Philadelphia, and their improvement is just a marginal one, what about the bottom ten? How have their ratings gone this year?

I'm not saying those other 23 teams are worse, and I'm not saying they're necessarily better, I'm just saying, well, I'm saying I have no idea, and neither does anyone else without access to the information.

Pointing to that website and saying, "See, I told you the league is prosperous!" is somewhat like pointing to a list of the top teams with the 10 best won-loss records in the league and saying, "See, I told you all the teams are winning this year!"

We only know 1/3 of the story. I can't imagine I'm the only one out there curious to see the rest of the story. Any ad-men out there with access to that sort of info, feel free to educate us.

Da Fort

Couple of brief updates on our man Danny Fortson.

The first is a fantasy piece that puts a smile on your face for combining "Danny Fortson" and "blueberry pie" in the same sentence.

The second, though, I can only hope is made-up, because it's just too disturbing otherwise.

Note to Self: Add More Pics of Cheerleaders

Looking at basketball blogs, through the viewfinder of genderanalyzer.com. Per the site’s own description: [GenderAnalyzes] uses Artificial Intelligence to determine if a homepage is written by a man or woman. Behind the scene, a text classifier hosted over at uClassify.com has been trained on blogs written by men and women.”

Site: Likelihood the site is written by a man
HardwoodParoxysm: 100%
Playboy: 99%
SonicsCentral:, 92%
Need4Sheed: 90%
Detroit Bad Boys: 86%
Sactown Royalty: 84%
Basketbawful: 82%
Ball Don’t Lie: 80%
CelticsBlog: 79%
3 Shades of Blue: 79%
BlogMaverick: 79%
TrueHoop: 77%
Empty the Bench: 76%
BlazersEdge: 76%
Oprah.com: 75%
Blog a Bull: 73%
Deadspin: 70%
Wizznutzz: 67%
SuperSonicSoul: 59%
Golden State of Mind: 45%

SuperSonicsoul: Still more manly than those man-loving hippy freaks in San Francisco, not quite as manly as those man-loving narcissists at Deadspin.

Beating a Dead Horse

Continuing my diatribe from last week, let’s look at another way to view attendance figures: Percent of capacity.

(As always, figures come from espn.com. Glad we cleared that up.)

Last season, out of 30 NBA teams, the percent of capacity scale broke down as follows:
90-100%: 17 teams
80-90%: 6
70-80%: 5
60-70%: 2

And this season?
90-100%: 17
80-90%: 5
70-80%: 4
60-70%: 4

That’s a pretty even distribution looking at it quickly, but if you delve deeper into the figures, the picture becomes bleaker.

Teams at 99%+ capacity
2008: 10
2009: 5

Also, as pointed out at Wages of Wins last year in a fine article about the NBA’s apparent popularity issues, the NBA has traded a city with poor attendance marks (Seattle) for one with strong attendance marks (Oklahoma City). However, despite WoW’s argument that Oklahoma City was 50% of the problem in last year’s attendance figures (i.e., the trade of OKC for N.O. and the lackluster figures in Seattle), the move of the Sonics to OKC has not alleviated the league’s problems at the gate. In fact, the numbers this year are even worse than last year.

But back to the main point of this story – the capacity scenario. Another way to look at the numbers is to compare each team to its’ figures from last year.

2008 vs 2009
Improved: 8 teams
Declined: 19
No change: 3

In other words, more than twice as many teams are facing declining numbers when viewed as a percentage of capacity this season, a staggering figure. Four of those teams are seeing their attendance drop by more than 10 points from last year’s totals, Philadelphia (from 73 to 62), Sacramento (from 82 to 70), the Clippers (from 86 to 72), and the Heat (from 99 to 81).

How many teams have improved by more than 10 points over last season? Just one, Oklahoma City. (Although, to be fair, the Hornets are on the precipice, at +9.2 from last year).

In other words, the only NBA franchise to see a substantial improvement from last season was the franchise the league decimated in its previous locale. Not exactly a stirring endorsement of the league’s fortunes.

Adieu, PJ

I'm guessing that when Clay Bennett drew up the outline for how things would go in his triumphant return to Oklahoma City this season, it was quite dissimilar to the way the actual story has gone.

Following a Friday night loss to the Hornets which put the Thunder's record at 1-12, wundersenior PJ Carlesimo was sent packing in what was surely his final opportunity at coaching an NBA team.

If you doubt me, and think that Carlesimo will be the Stan Albeck of his generation - a perennial retread coach who always manages to find a way - take a look at these numbers:

19-63
21-29
6-21
20-62
1-12

That adds up to 67-187, and marks PJ's cumulative record in his final five seasons as an NBA coach. It is a remarkably inept performance, matched only by the buffoonery of the people who hired him in the first place.

The Great Wall of Payton?

Details are sketchy, but rumors are beginning to surface about Gary Payton making a return to professional basketball, but this time on the other side of the Pacific Ocean, at least as reported by solobasket.com.

I'm not sure what was more surprising in reading that article, that Payton would like to subject himself to playing overseas, or that Bob Weiss is a head coach in China. I wonder if Bob Hill is planning to snake Weiss' job over there as well?

In other news, Steve Scheffler has expressed interest in returning to professional basketball in the Turkmenistan professional league.

That interest, unfortunately, has not been reciprocated.