Better Data

When I started talking about NBA attendance a month ago, I received some criticism for how I presented the information. Specifically, the critics pointed out that I was using partial results for 2008-09 and comparing them to complete results from last year.

You know what? The critics were right.

It was unfair to use returns from a partially completed season and expect that to be an accurate reflection of how the season would unfold. All you have to do is look at how the 76ers attendance jumped dramatically in the second half of last season to know that early results are not necessarily predictive.

What would be better, then, is to compare how teams have done on a game-by-game basis from last year to this year. That would be much more illustrative of how franchises are faring.

So, I did it.

Through nine home games (the minimum number of home games every team in the league has played), here is how the entire league is doing compared to last season:

New Orleans, 46491
Oklahoma City, 40133
Portland, 17358
Atlanta, 15720
Indiana, 14996
Philadelphia, 11725
New Jersey, 11329
Milwaukee, 1278
Denver, 1162
Boston, 0
Cleveland, 0
Detroit, 0
LA Lakers, 0
Phoenix, 0
Utah, 0
Dallas, -309
Toronto, -1698
Chicago, -2840
New York, -2972
Charlotte, -3846
San Antonio, -4209
Golden State, -4834
Houston, -5782
Orlando, -7244
Minnesota, -7814
Memphis, -9320
Sacramento, -12761
Washington, -14197
LA Clippers. -18707
Miami, -26376

To sum the whole bag of numbers into one tidy sum, it looks promising for the league, as the overall attendance numbers through nine games has improved by 22,350 over last season.

But even a first-grader can see that things aren’t as rosy as all that. Consider that two teams, New Orleans and Oklahoma City, are responsible for 54% of the league’s growth, are both coming off of seasons that would have been nearly impossible not to improve upon. A similar number of the league’s decline (i.e., 54% of the league’s negative performers), would require four teams, indicating that while the positive reports are narrowly focused, the negative ones are much more widely spread.

Consider also that there are nine teams with improved attendance figures, but 15 teams with worse attendance. Again, this points to a small, deep pool of improved teams and wide, shallow pool of negative ones.

When David Stern was interviewed by Bill Simmons last week at ESPN, the commissioner denied Simmons’ inference that the league’s numbers may be a bit off this year, contending that, to paraphrase, they were doing just as well this year as last, and that last year was their best year ever.

Well, he was either lying or being disingenuous. Half of the teams in the NBA are showing a decline in attendance from last season. The Spurs sold out on opening night, and have see a decline from the previous year in nearly every game since. The Rockets, a team many expected big things from with their off-season moves, are off more than 7,000 from last year’s attendance. The Grizzlies, a team no one could call fiscally healthy entering the season, have done worse than last season in every game but one this year, and have drawn between 50-60% capacity eight times for every one time they exceed 90%.

I’ll go into the data more as the week progresses. As always, feel free to counter the data with your interpretations. I will say, though, that there are positives to take away from the numbers. The Blazers, Hawks, Sixers, and Pacers have all posted significant improvements, which is admirable considering the economic malaise afflicting North America. More importantly, looking at the data this way will enable us to more accurately see just where the NBA ship is heading, and will eliminate some of the speculation.

Stern Speaks

Bill Simmons' most recent podcast on ESPN contains an interview with Seattle's favorite commissioner, David Stern, and while Stern danced around questions with the grace of Fred Astaire, he did provide listeners with some interesting pieces of information.

None greater than his response to Simmons' query about the sad state of affairs surrounding the Sonics' departure and relocation to Oklahoma City.

"Everyone agreed," Stern stated, "that a new arena was necessary. Exactly how it would be funded became the issue, and that issue became contentious."

Of course, by "everyone," he means everyone affiliated with an NBA franchise. And by "the issue," he means the issue the NBA wanted to focus upon.

Lord knows, David Stern didn't think a new arena was necessary less than 10 years ago, or else he wouldn't have commented to a Seattle reporter that KeyArena was one of the best arenas in the league.

Funny how time changes one's perspective.

But that falls short of the most revealing part of the conversation. Early in the podcast, Stern rebuked Simmons for the host's statement that a handful of teams might be in financial trouble, claiming that the NBA's group of owners are sufficiently wealthy enough to withstand any economic "downturn."

And yet, less than 10 minutes later, he made this comment in regard to Seattle's chances at landing another team:

"This economy is going to contain certain disruptions, and out of those disruptions may come opportunities for some cities, and Seattle may be one of them."

Sadly, Simmons failed to point out Stern's hypocritical statements, although he did his best to get the commissioner to admit that what happened to the Sonics was beyond sad. Obviously, Stern knows as well as anyone how perilous the situation is in cities such as Memphis, and that big, fat carrot called "relocation" is being dangled in front of Seattle's politicians.

What remains to be seen, though, is if any of them are interested in biting.

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.