Big Market Team Fallacy

[QUOTE=tpols]Most Championships in NBA History:

-Boston Celtics 16
-Los Angeles Lakers 15
-Chicago Bulls 6
-San Antonio Spurs 4
-Philadelphia 76ers 3
-Detroit Pistons 3
...

As you can see, the teams occupying the biggest and most notable cities have produced some of the most winningest organizations.. and this draws players' attention.

Look at the Lakers for Christ's sake.. they have pulled in Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Magic Johnson, Shaquille Oneal, and Kobe Bryant through the PURE appeal of playing for the Los Angeles Lakers. And you dont think the Lakers got this appeal by occupying first and playing in one of the biggest and most well known markets in the country? Why were most of the teams that sprung up to be dynasties located in some of the biggest and mot revered cities in the U.S.?

The funny thing is the two teams that aren't in big markets, Detroit and San Antonio, are known as the GOAT intangibles/management dynasties.. the bad boy pistons? The Larry Brown pistons? The time duncan spurs? All built through incredible coaching, team work, and defense. Free Agency and attracting 'stars' had very little to do with their success.[/QUOTE]


5 of those Laker titles came in Minneapolis. The reason those teams won had more to do with the players they drafted than the city they were in.

It would be better to say that the majority of titles were won by Russell, Kareem, Magic, Bird, Jordan, Shaq, Duncan, and Kobe. If your team was lucky enough to get one of those guys, you probably won a title.

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]
It would be better to say that the majority of titles were won by Russell, Kareem, Magic, Bird, Jordan, Shaq, Duncan, and Kobe. If your team was lucky enough to get one of those guys, you probably won a title.[/QUOTE]
If your team was lucky enough to get one of them? The Lakers alone got FOUR of the guys on that list. Do you know the odds of that happening? One team getting 4-5 of the GOAT players? You're acting like this was a lucky draw out of a hat. It wasn't.. Kobe and Magic both wanted to play for LA and not for any small market teams[like Charlotte]. Wilt went to LA for a title.. Kareem went to LA.. Shaq went to LA. You dont think the apeal of playing for the Los Angeles Lakers had anything to do with all of this?

And why did the Lakers move from Minneapolis to Los Angeles? Is it a coincidence that they moved from a small market to a huge one? Come on man.. this shit is all staring you right in the face.

[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]

You are completely missing the point on this front, it's not about competing on the basketball court, it's about remaining viable off the court. Basketball is a sport that will always have a few teams with a chance because it is so player centric, you need a star player to have a real chance on the court.

The problem is the small market teams are crippled off the court which is making the entire league weaker.

The big benefit for fans is that the ways that will help those teams compete off the court will also make the product far better. Having a hard cap being chief amongst that but also removing the bad contracts that can handcuff a franchise, the big teams can afford the tax hits to get rid of bad contracts but the little teams just have to eat them. Sure the owners made the bad decisions but this is just about the only business where people aren't paid on performance and are guaranteed no matter what and that system has to go.

The paid to perform and hard capped system in the NFL is a major reason why that league is so much more popular than the NBA. It doesn't hurt that their owners actually have a good system to support all the teams outside of just those arms of the agreement but those are huge reasons.

[QUOTE=tpols]If your team was lucky enough to get one of them? The Lakers alone got FOUR of the guys on that list. Do you know the odds of that happening? One team getting 4-5 of the GOAT players? You're acting like this was a lucky draw out of a hat. It wasn't.. Kobe and Magic both wanted to play for LA and not for any small market teams[like Charlotte]. Wilt went to LA for a title.. Kareem went to LA.. Shaq went to LA. You dont think the apeal of playing for the Los Angeles Lakers had anything to do with all of this?

And why did the Lakers move from Minneapolis to Los Angeles? Is it a coincidence that they moved from a small market to a huge one? Come on man.. this shit is all staring you right in the face.[/QUOTE]

Shaq went to LA because he wanted to make movies. Kobe and Magic forcing their way to LA is overblown. Kobe was an 18 year high schooler that 13 other teams passed up. If I am not mistaken he really wanted to play for the Sixers. The Lakers got Magic off a coin flip.

The Lakers are also one of the best run organizations in sports, so of course people want to play for them. How come players aren't dying to play for the Clippers? They play in the same city, in the same building. The NBA has had free agency since 1976. Who are the big free agents that have been running to play for the Knicks? Who are the big free agents that have been running to play for the Bulls?

[QUOTE=EricForman]Big market/cities have an edge in free agency, it's just fact. Everyone who's in their 20s wants to live in NYC or LA over Milwaukee or Cleveland. Whether or not that's worked out so far is beyond the point. NY was an anomaly because of their horrendous decision making.

The knicks still made moeny even when they were losing, so did Chicago. that's how much more of an edge big cities have.

i say... tough sh*t. life is unfair, and big cities will always hold more appeal. to try to tilt all these rules in favor of freaking Portland just so they can be on equal footing with NYC is dumb. NYC is NYC.[/QUOTE]

So how did LAL or NYK capitalize on this edge? Don't say Amare, because getting to sign Amare for a huge contract is more like a punishment than competitive edge.

[QUOTE=tpols]Most Championships in NBA History:

-Boston Celtics 16
-Los Angeles Lakers 15
-Chicago Bulls 6
-San Antonio Spurs 4
-Philadelphia 76ers 3
-Detroit Pistons 3
...

As you can see, the teams occupying the biggest and most notable cities have produced some of the most winningest organizations.. and this draws players' attention.
[/QUOTE]

Did you know that NBA had only like 10 teams until mid-70s? It's true, look it up.

[QUOTE=Kevin_Gamble]Did you know that NBA had only like 10 teams until mid-70s? It's true, look it up.[/QUOTE]
Yea and those ten teams included a lot of major cities right? LA.. Philly.. New York.. Boston.. Washington, etc. And those teams have been the most winningest franchises even AFTER the mid 70s.

This is how it went..

-The best teams started off in some of the biggest/most well known cities[because teams needed big markets to draw in fans, make revenue, expand the league at the beginning]
--->These teams built some of the best legacies because they were always winners
------->Players nowadays want to play for those storied franchises

It all started with location though. Of course it isn't just the root as location is still a reason today though.. players like teams in nice cities, with nice wheather, good atmospheres, and big cmarkets[more exposure/endorsements]. People will bring up Lebron being huge in Cleveland.. Well I can assure you his hype would have been magnified even more if he had played for NY, or Boston, or LA. It's just the truth.

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]Shaq went to LA because he wanted to make movies.
[/QUOTE]

Dude.. you're proving my point. He wasn't making movies in Milwaukee. He had to go to LOS ANGELES.. the city of angels.. Hollywood.. cmon.

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]
Kobe and Magic forcing their way to LA is overblown.
[/QUOTE]

Overblown how? They both didnt want to play for small market teams and said they wanted to play in LA.. the bigger market. They are both perfectly viable examples for this thread. You cant even say shit about it.

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]
Kobe was an 18 year high schooler that 13 other teams passed up. If I am not mistaken he really wanted to play for the Sixers. The Lakers got Magic off a coin flip.[/QUOTE]

No.. Magic said he wanted to play in LA. I'm almost 100% positive. Regardless if he didn't demand it, he definitely expressed a willingness to play in a big market.

And Kobe forcing his way to Philly would have been no different than him forcing his way to LA. They're both top 5 cities in the country and have huge legacies behind their teams.

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]
The Lakers are also one of the best run organizations in sports, so of course people want to play for them. How come players aren't dying to play for the Clippers? They play in the same city, in the same building. The NBA has had free agency since 1976. Who are the big free agents that have been running to play for the Knicks? Who are the big free agents that have been running to play for the Bulls?[/QUOTE]

You answered your own question.. because the Clippers aren't one of the best run organizations in sports. In fact.. they're one of the worst. thats why players dont want to go there.

You have to factor everything in man. Players want to play for teams that are properly run, can pay, AND have good locations/storied teams. If every factor except good location is shitty, like the Clippers, no one will want to play there. It's that simple.

[QUOTE=tpols]Yea and those ten teams included a lot of major cities right? LA.. Philly.. New York.. Boston.. Washington, etc. And those teams have been the most winningest franchises even AFTER the mid 70s.

This is how it went..

-The best teams started off in some of the biggest/most well known cities[because teams needed big markets to draw in fans, make revenue, expand the league at the beginning]
--->These teams built some of the best legacies because they were always winners
------->Players nowadays want to play for those storied franchises

It all started with location though. Of course it isn't just the root as location is still a reason today though.. players like teams in nice cities, with nice wheather, good atmospheres, and big cmarkets[more exposure/endorsements]. People will bring up Lebron being huge in Cleveland.. Well I can assure you his hype would have been magnified even more if he had played for NY, or Boston, or LA. It's just the truth.[/QUOTE]

Yea the NBA started in major cities like Minneapolis (Lakers), Rochester (Royals), Fort Wayne (Pistons), Syracuse (Nationals), Tri City - Moline Illinois (Black Hawks) and Indianapolis (Olympians).

But of course Bill Russell wouldn't play for any of THOSE teams. He forced his way to Boston to play with Cousy.

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]Yea the NBA started in major cities like Minneapolis (Lakers), Rochester (Royals), Fort Wayne (Pistons), Syracuse (Nationals), Tri City - Moline Illinois (Black Hawks) and Indianapolis (Olympians).

But of course Bill Russell wouldn't play for any of THOSE teams. He forced his way to Boston to play with Cousy.[/QUOTE]
And all of those teams were abandoned for... bigger markets lol.

And I dont know if you're agreeing with me with that Bill Russel comment or not.

Listen Sarcastic.. Im not saying being in a big city and playing for a storied franchise are the end all be all to aquiring good players. I'm just saying it plays a role. It could be something like..

-20% Location/Franchise
-40% other players/management
-40% personal preference[where the individual grew up]

All I'm saying is it plays a role.. and it may be bigger than 20% imo. You cant deny it isnt there though dude.

[QUOTE=tpols]Listen Sarcastic.. Im not saying being in a big city and playing for a storied franchise are the end all be all to aquiring good players. I'm just saying it plays a role. It could be something like..

-20% Location/Franchise
-40% other players/management
-40% personal preference[where the individual grew up]

All I'm saying is it plays a role.. and it may be bigger than 20% imo. You cant deny it isnt there though dude.[/QUOTE]

But the opportunity for a player to even pick his team of choosing is very small in the first place. #1 They only get their free agency after 7-8 years, unless they want to forgo tons of money. #2 They have to make sure the team they want to go actually has salary cap space to begin with. If we implemented the NFL type system with non guaranteed contracts, then #2 actually becomes much easier to achieve. NY wouldn't have to spend 2 years tanking to clear cap space for Lebron (they didn't get him anyway because he didn't care about market size). They could have just cut their bad contracts and had space to sign the Lebron, Wade, and Bosh. Miami worked really hard to clear enough space to sign all 3 of them.

You're a Nets fan. They want to keep Deron Williams when they open the new arena in Brooklyn, but he still hasn't signed the contract. Why not? He gets to play in NYC, in what's going to be new hip team in Brooklyn. He gets to be the premier star for the team. Why won't he resign yet? If market matters, what's the hold up?

[QUOTE=tpols]Listen Sarcastic.. Im not saying being in a big city and playing for a storied franchise are the end all be all to aquiring good players. I'm just saying it plays a role. It could be something like..

-20% Location/Franchise
-40% other players/management
-40% personal preference[where the individual grew up]

All I'm saying is it plays a role.. and it may be bigger than 20% imo. You cant deny it isnt there though dude.[/QUOTE]
Of course it plays a role.. People are just in denial when it comes to this subject..


I ask this for all the folks who say location or franchise or market is bunk

If you gave any player the choice take his salary as is and pick any team in the league how many are going to say LA, Chicago, Boston or NY or Miami or one of the other elite franchises, how many are gonna say Milwaukee here I come!

And the Magic thing. He was going to come out early if the Lakers won the coin toss or stay in college another year if they lost

[QUOTE=Sarcastic]

You're a Nets fan. They want to keep Deron Williams when they open the new arena in Brooklyn, but he still hasn't signed the contract. Why not? He gets to play in NYC, in what's going to be new hip team in Brooklyn. He gets to be the premier star for the team. Why won't he resign yet? If market matters, what's the hold up?[/QUOTE]
I just explained this two posts ago.. shitty management. Did you see who the Nets signed during FA? :oldlol: Who wants to play for a loser? Brooklyn is a great market. But you need the other factors to line up as well. If Deron had to choose between playing with Dwight Howard in Milwaukee or Dwight Howard in Brooklyn, I GUARANTEE you he chooses Brooklyn. If all other factors are held constant, the player will always choose the better location.