Big Market Team Fallacy

[QUOTE=longtime lurker]So we have 2 big market teams and 4 small market teams in the top 6 in spending over the last 10 years. LA and San Antonio have 7 championships between them in the last ten years. While the rest of account for 0 combined. It seems to me that having Tim Duncan and Kobe Bryant has more to do with success than spending spending or market size. New York is proof that market size and spending don't make such a huge difference or they would have done a hell of a lot more in the past 10 years.[/QUOTE]
That's not top 6 bro. I just picked 6 teams

[QUOTE=Sarcastic][url]http://wagesofwins.net/2011/08/10/nba-owners-do-not-understand-competitive-balance/[/url][/QUOTE]
And where did you get that from? A blog? :roll:

Nobody's saying market size equates to wins. All were saying is that a bigger market size gives a team more spending power and that's an advantage.

Don't understand why you relate market size to "wins" and being successful. Just because not all other big market teams were as stupid as you Knicks, you think you coul lump them all up.

Build a team with current player salaries with only $56 million to live and play in Wisconsin. I"ll build one for $96 million to live and play in Los Angeles. I'm pretty sure I can build a better team.

Don't really understand why you don't get this. Give one kid $5 and another $10 and tell them to spend all their money on a the same candy store, let's see wo gets back with the most candy.

End this MFN thread

[QUOTE=gasolina]And where did you get that from? A blog? :roll:

Nobody's saying market size equates to wins. All were saying is that a bigger market size gives a team more spending power and that's an advantage.

Don't understand why you relate market size to "wins" and being successful. Just because not all other big market teams were as stupid as you Knicks, you think you coul lump them all up.

Build a team with current player salaries with only $56 million to live and play in Wisconsin. I"ll build one for $96 million to live and play in Los Angeles. I'm pretty sure I can build a better team.

Don't really understand why you don't get this. Give one kid $5 and another $10 and tell them to spend all their money on a the same candy store, let's see wo gets back with the most candy.

End this MFN thread[/QUOTE]

...amd all I'm saying is that the old agreement curtailed those advantages so that the Big Market teams couldn't use those advantages to dominate..ad evidenced by the fact that small markets did just fine since '99 (and its not just SA - Sac, Indy, NJN, Minn, Mil, Grizz, all had good stretches in the last 13 years).

[QUOTE=Joey Zaza]...amd all I'm saying is that the old agreement curtailed those advantages so that the Big Market teams couldn't use those advantages to dominate..ad evidenced by the fact that small markets did just fine since '99 (and its not just SA - Sac, Indy, NJN, Minn, Mil, Grizz, all had good stretches in the last 13 years).[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't call a team "doing fine" if they were losing money almost every year. In fact, Indiana was losing money even during the reggie miller days.

I can't believe the double standard here in this board. You guys point out how no big market team other than the Lakers have won a championship since 99, yet you claim the good "stretches" of small market teams is "fine"?

How many times have the grizzlies been in the playoffs? How about Dallas?

[QUOTE=gasolina]I wouldn't call a team "doing fine" if they were losing money almost every year. In fact, Indiana was losing money even during the reggie miller days.

I can't believe the double standard here in this board. You guys point out how no big market team other than the Lakers have won a championship since 99, yet you claim the good "stretches" of small market teams is "fine"?

How many times have the grizzlies been in the playoffs? How about Dallas?[/QUOTE]

The point of the thread is that big markets don't really have a COMPETITIVE advantage.

You can't just point out one historically crappy team like the Grizz and compare it to another, that's anecdotal evidence. Look at the stats across the board.

Will smaller markets always find it harder to make money? Yes.

The main way that is solved is by revenue sharing, like in the NFL, NHL, MLB. The NBA has the worst revenue sharing. If a team still can't be profitable after they adjust revenue sharing to be more in line with other leagues (which they're supposed to be), then you have to question whether a franchise in certain places is sustainable.

[QUOTE=gasolina]And where did you get that from? A blog? :roll:

Nobody's saying market size equates to wins. All were saying is that a bigger market size gives a team more spending power and that's an advantage.

Don't understand why you relate market size to "wins" and being successful. Just because not all other big market teams were as stupid as you Knicks, you think you coul lump them all up.

Build a team with current player salaries with only $56 million to live and play in Wisconsin. I"ll build one for $96 million to live and play in Los Angeles. I'm pretty sure I can build a better team.

Don't really understand why you don't get this. Give one kid $5 and another $10 and tell them to spend all their money on a the same candy store, let's see wo gets back with the most candy.

End this MFN thread[/QUOTE]

Of course. Attack the source. Don't debate the facts. Why should I expect anything less.


[url]http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/32841/the-payroll-and-competitive-balance-myth[/url]

[IMG]http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2011/1026/nba_g_payroll_sy_576.jpg[/IMG]


[QUOTE]Here is an updated chart of the best drafting teams and the worst drafting teams over the past decade, along with their winning percentage and dollars spent over that time. Also, it is color-coded to make visualizing the data easier (greater the number, greener the cell).

What do we find? New Orleans, San Antonio and Cleveland have done the most with the draft over the past decade. The Hornets built a perennial playoff team on the cheap by picking Chris Paul at No. 4 and finding an All-Star at No. 18 in David West. They squeezed out 18.5 wins above what we

[QUOTE=pmj]The point of the thread is that big markets don't really have a COMPETITIVE advantage.

[B]You can't just point out one historically crappy team like the Grizz and compare it to another, that's anecdotal evidence. Look at the stats across the board.[/B]

Will smaller markets always find it harder to make money? Yes.

The main way that is solved is by revenue sharing, like in the NFL, NHL, MLB. The NBA has the worst revenue sharing. If a team still can't be profitable after they adjust revenue sharing to be more in line with other leagues (which they're supposed to be), then you have to question whether a franchise in certain places is sustainable.[/QUOTE]


Basically. Remember every big market team is like the Lakers, but the lowly Spurs were just super duper lucky to catch lightning in a bottle. :violin:

[QUOTE=pmj]The point of the thread is that big markets don't really have a COMPETITIVE advantage. [/QUOTE]
Won't having more money give you a competitive advantage? Given the fact that you have to PAY players? :facepalm

And I agree, market doesn't correlate to wins, but to completely ignore the fact that the Lakers, Knicks, and Mavs has more money to spend than the rest of the league, and not treat that as an an advantage, is just idiotic.

[QUOTE=gasolina]Won't having more money give you a competitive advantage? Given the fact that you have to PAY players? :facepalm

And I agree, market doesn't correlate to wins, but to completely ignore the fact that the Lakers, Knicks, and Mavs has more money to spend than the rest of the league, and not treat that as an an advantage, is just idiotic.[/QUOTE]

I am an advocate for more revenue sharing. Should be 1 league, not 30 teams.

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]I am an advocate for more revenue sharing. Should be 1 league, not 30 teams.[/QUOTE]
Why are you pro-revenue sharing then?

Its really not hard.

There is an advantage to some franchises....just a fact. Now, whether or not those advantages or taken advantage of or how important they become over time is up for debate.

But this is about winning titles for those smaller market teams. That is what they said in 06 when they signed the petition and that is what they are saying now. Those teams feel like they just don't have the same chance to challenge for titles....and I agree.

And also, the points about management are very good. Management is the most important factor for success...totally agree. However, what you can't discount is that its harder to manage a team with less money and a less desirable market/location....

Can it be done? Of course, but its harder. We can't ignore the real possibility that some of the owners/gm's of these teams with inherent disadvantages are actually very good at what they do, but its the circumstances that impact the decisions they make at times.

You have to look at this more with an open mind. It can't just be good vs bad management. So much goes into facilitating certain management decisions. Which once again brings us back to the simple fact that every team is not on the same playing field....and it impacts everything. Its just too narrow minded to think otherwise.

[QUOTE=gasolina]Why are you pro-revenue sharing then?[/QUOTE]

Because I think all 30 shareholders of NBA stock should get roughly the same dividend. They are only competitors against each other on the court. As a business they are all one and the same, and shouldn't compete with each for market share. What's good for Memphis, should be good for NY, should be good for San Antonio, etc, etc.

Maybe some of the shareholders in states with higher taxes like NY, and California should get a little more than the shareholders in Texas or Florida since they have a lighter tax burden.

So when a big market wins a title, its just the one big market properly using its advantage. When a small market wins a title, its a lucky chance that they got the one-good player.

got it.

Here's news for everyone, if we've leanred anything from the title-winning teams of the last 60 years....the way to be a title-caliber team is by getting a great player. Usually the team drafts and keeps that player. The way to win a title is by having a great player and getting a bunch of good bounces.

As far as I can see, the only proof of this big market advantage is the LAL, which is perfectly ocuntered by SA. WELL SA DRAFTED A GREAT PLAYER. So do the LAL. SA WAS WELL BUILT AROUND HIM. So did the LAL. No one choose to go to LA because its LA (since '99).

BUT THEY HAVE MORE MONEY!!!!

Yeah, but there is a cap. All teams can only spend so much.

BUT PLAYERS FLOCK TO THE BIG MARKETS! Proof --- please proof aside from the threat of Deron, Howard, and Paul leaving.

BUT BIG MARKETS HAVE MORE MONEY!!! They can only spend so much.

BIG MARKETS CAN DOMINATE!!! ONE (1) Big market has dominated for the last 12 years and so has one small market. Most of the big markets have been between ok and sh!tty.

ITS UNFAIR BIG MARKET BIG MARKET BIG MARKET....ITS A FACT BIG MARKET.

Its a fallacy. There is no objective evidence of the Big Markets asserting any edge during under the 99 CBA.

[QUOTE=Joey Zaza]So when a big market wins a title, its just the one big market properly using its advantage. When a small market wins a title, its a lucky chance that they got the one-good player.

got it.

Here's news for everyone, if we've leanred anything from the title-winning teams of the last 60 years....the way to be a title-caliber team is by getting a great player. Usually the team drafts and keeps that player. The way to win a title is by having a great player and getting a bunch of good bounces.

As far as I can see, the only proof of this big market advantage is the LAL, which is perfectly ocuntered by SA. WELL SA DRAFTED A GREAT PLAYER. So do the LAL. SA WAS WELL BUILT AROUND HIM. So did the LAL. No one choose to go to LA because its LA (since '99).

BUT THEY HAVE MORE MONEY!!!!

Yeah, but there is a cap. All teams can only spend so much.

BUT PLAYERS FLOCK TO THE BIG MARKETS! Proof --- please proof aside from the threat of Deron, Howard, and Paul leaving.

BUT BIG MARKETS HAVE MORE MONEY!!! They can only spend so much.

BIG MARKETS CAN DOMINATE!!! ONE (1) Big market has dominated for the last 12 years and so has one small market. Most of the big markets have been between ok and sh!tty.

ITS UNFAIR BIG MARKET BIG MARKET BIG MARKET....ITS A FACT BIG MARKET.

Its a fallacy. There is no objective evidence of the Big Markets asserting any edge during under the 99 CBA.[/QUOTE]

wait....what?

there is no cap effectively.....you can go into the luxury tax and spend whatever you want really.

this era? shaq left for the lakers...changing the landscape of the nba. kobe forced his way to the lakers in the draft...changing the landscape after refusing to play for the nets....or at least his agent said enough to scare coach cal from away.

the raptors have lost three potential franchise players....or at least 3 high quality players. the cavs lost one of the best players ever. melo forced his way out. the jazz traded deron in fear.

kg/allen joined up on the celtics...a big market team.

paul and howard are about to leave.

cuban basically bought his team.....the mavs have actually had poor management on the whole...cuban has just spent his way out of trouble. again, one of the many advantages of having more money.

why do these big name players continue to go to desirable franchises in bigger markets? if its a non factor, why isn't dwight howard talking about going to the hornets? why isn't paul talking about staying and recruiting. same with lebron/bosh? melo?

why do all these guys want to go and play in bigger markets if it means nothing and its not an advantage?

why are all these owners constantly complaining about these advantages if they don't exist?

wake up please.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]wait....what?

[B]there is no cap effectively[/B].....you can go into the luxury tax and spend whatever you want really.

[/QUOTE]

You don't really believe this, do you?