Bizarro World

I've just finished a book about the Congo (In the Footsteps of Mr. Kurtz; worth checking out, although not as good as King Leopold's Ghost), and, among other topics, it covers the disparity between the wealthy friends of Mobutu and the rest of the country at the time of Mobutu's fall from grace. (Well, not grace exactly, perhaps fall from power is more apt ). Essentially, the country had a few folks living the high life, and the rest struggling to find ways to keep from starving to death.

Which takes me in a convulted fashion to the Western Conference of the NBA this year. At the moment, there are nine teams with 10+ wins, all winning close to 60% of their games.

And then there is the rest of the conference.

Of the six remaining teams, not one of them is winning more than 30% of its games. It's hard to appreciate the disparity when the teams have only played a quarter of the season, but imagine if you extrapolated the current records to a full 82 games.

The worst of the 'haves', Phoenix, would finish with 47 wins.

The best of the 'have nots', Golden State/Memphis, would finish with 23.

In other words, the nine teams competing for a playoff berth would have a two-month cushion over the next six teams. It's an amazing disparity of success, isn't it?

Perhaps someone with more diligence than I should comb through the records to see if, as the Zaireans did for so many years, the elite of the Western Conference are fattening themselves off of the backs of the poor.

Wager

Here's something I'd like to see the line for at Bodog sometime soon:

Price/share for Chesapeake Energy vs. Total Wins for Oklahoma City Thunder

At the moment, Chesapeake is winning, clocking in at a cool $14 after shooting up about $3 today. Meanwhile, the Thunder trudge along with the grand total of two wins. At this pace, the Thunder would finish the year at 8-74, but we all know that with the naming of Scotty Brooks as Head Coach, they're sure to go on fire and start winning games at a record-setting pace.

I'm putting them down for at least 10.

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.