The NBA Has the Worst Parity...

[SportsCapNative]

...of the 4 major sports (according to this article).

Parity can be defined in different ways. I think some people used to define parity as a diverse group of teams making the playoffs. But with the number of teams that make the postseason these days, I think that stat is now useless.

So, for today, I’m going to look at parity in two ways. First, I’ll look at the number of different winners in all four major sports over the last 15 years. Then, for argument sake, I’ll look at the number of different teams that have played for a championship in the last 15 years. What you’ll find out is that the NBA is the only league of the four majors that has had fewer than 25 percent of the teams in its league declared champions over the last 15 years. It’s also the only league that has seen fewer than 55 percent of its teams play for a title in that time period.

First, let’s look at the leagues and the winners over the past 15 years.

NFL (11 winners): Giants, Colts, Steelers, Patriots, Buccaneers, Ravens, Rams, Broncos, Packers, Cowboys and 49ers.

MLB (10 winners): Phillies/Rays, Red Sox, Cardinals, Marlins, Angels, White Sox, Diamondbacks, Yankees, Braves and Blue Jays.

NHL (9 winners): Red Wings, Ducks, Hurricanes, Lightning, Devils, Avalanche, Stars, Rangers and Canadiens.

NBA (7 winners): Celtics, Spurs, Heat, Pistons, Lakers, Bulls and Rockets...That time span is actually beneficial to the NBA. It’s actually only eight different champions in 25 years.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/27401721

I ran across this article and found it really interesting. Only 8 different champions in 25 years You've got to be joking.

[bdm860]

Eh, I don't know, I think I disagree with this guys overall point, especially his conclusion:

Now, you asking yourself, why is parity so important? Because fans believing that their team can win is the single greatest factor in going to games. It’s why, out of the bottom third of NBA attendance, there’s not a single winner on the list and 70 percent of the bottom 10 teams haven’t made the Finals. So more parity makes the league healthier.

Nothing like jumping to a conclusion with no supporting evidence. The NBA has seen last place teams consistently sell out (Hornets in their early years, Bulls post Jordan, etc.).

The NFL is on it's own level, nothing can compare to that with games once a week and only 16 game seasons, no parity or complete parity, NFL will still rule.  But the NHL is number 2 in parity, and isn't the NHL pretty much considered the worst major US sports league and least successful?  What channel are their games on again? So how can you possibly say parity leads to a healthier league?

Meanwhile, the NBA has only seen about 23 percent of its teams win a trophy in the last 15 years. That time span is actually beneficial to the NBA. It’s actually only eight different champions in 25 years.

So really he's talking about the 80's and 90's here with the Lakers, Celtics, Pistons, Rockets and Bulls winning every championship from 1980 to 1998 except in '83 (when Philly won). Isn't this time of no parity considered the golden age of the modern NBA (the 80's and early 90's)?  Wasn't it before this time in the 70's with tons of parity (8 different teams won titles in 10 years with no team repeating) that the NBA Finals were still broadcast on tape delay?

So the NHL with parity is a successful league, one that sets the blueprint for all other leagues.

And the NBA, especially in the 80's and 90's is a perfect example of how a lack of parity is bad for a league.

Got it. 

[ACF]

The NBA has seen last place teams consistently sell out (Hornets in their early years, Bulls post Jordan, etc.).

Is it okay with you if I add the Knicks
to that list? 

Also, the Hornets seated more than 24,000
people for those games. Impressive.

[ManUp]

When it's only 5 players on the court each player's impact matters more. When you have dominant players for years, they do exactly that they dominate. Most of the teams had bonafide superstars the teams who didn't were out of luck.

The Idea/Theory is from one of Elrod Enchilada's articles. It makes complete sense, and is definitely true, in my opinion. The idea of the article is pretty clear. If you want to win a championship in the NBA you need an NBA superstar.

http://celtics.realgm.com/articles/344/20070802/a_calculated_risk_based_upon_the_iron_law_of_nba_championships/

Superstars off the 7 teams listed.

Celtics: Garnett
Spurs: Duncan/Robinson
Heat: Wade? (or was it still O'neal)
Pistons: Wallacex2, Billups, Hamilton, and Prince.
Lakers: O'neal
Bulls: Jordan
Rockets: Olajuwon

This theory is part of what helped me cope with us trading away Big Al.

[bdm860]

Check out this quote from John Thompson from today's Boston Herald article "It’s worth repeating: Title defense no easy task"  (big thanks to FLCeltsFan for doing this everyday, I'd be lost without it)http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/basketball/celtics/view.bg?articleid=1128290&format=text

“I don’t know of anything specifically, other than the fact that there is so much parity in this league right now,” he said. “Things really have to fall in place for a team now. (The Celtics) could play BETTER than last year and still have trouble.”

So John Thompson takes the opposite view on parity in today's NBA.

[nickagneta]

First off, I'm not so sure that the author of the article is saying that the NBA is less successful or less of a sport because there has been less parity within the league. I kind of got that he was just saying that when a new season comes up, it's easier to see at the beginning of a season who will probably be winning a title in the NBA than in other sports.

I think he is also trying to say that the long term health of the sport would be better if there was greater parity, a false conclusion as far as I am concerned.

The reason is because I believe that the NBA, unlike other sports, is dominated by so few individuals and if those individuals don't have player movement, then how is parity going to be decided. In baseball the greatest pitcher in the world only goes out and plays once every five days. In football a great and dominating defensive or offensive player can take a team only so far before he has to rely on the other side of the ball for success. Peyton Manning, as dominating a QB as he has been has only seen 1 Superbowl, Marino only saw one. In hockey, even the greatest of players is still only on the ice 2/3 of the game. Goalies can dominate but they can't score.

Only in basketball where the true greats can play and impact the game on both sides of the ball can one player really elevate his team to greatness. Take a look at the LeBrons in Cleveland. Take James off the Cavs and replace him with a decent SF like Rashard Lewis or David West and they are not anything more than a 7 seed with a quick exit. If they even make the playoffs.

Parity will always be less evident in the NBA because since expanding into the markets that the league has since the 1970's, the last time parity existed in the league, one special player makes that much of a difference.

Boston: Bird, KG
LA: Magic, Shaq, Kobe
San Antonio: Duncan
Miami: Shaq
Houston: Hakeem
Chicago: MJ
Detroit: Isiah and the exception team of 2004

But if that author thinks that Mr Stern is rooting for anything but an LA/Boston Finals this year, he is only kidding himself. Basketball, when great teams oppose each other with great players on either team, might be the single most entertaining of the 4 sports. Basketball fans will tune into games where their home team isn't playing. Can the same really be said about any other sport other than football?

[cordobes]

Living in a soccer-dominated culture, it's hard for me to comprehend the importance of parity. I mean, the main pro-sports competition over here (and the only anyone really cares about) have had 5 different winners in the last 70 years or so (since the beginning), and 2 of them only win it once.

OTH, I have a feeling that the author has a point. However, as Nick says, every team has a chance to win: they just need to luck into a great player in the lottery/draft process. That alone is enough to keep fans hoping, I think.

[Schupac]

Thanks for adding perspective, Cordobes.  There are rabid soccer fans for teams that never win "the big game".  An example in the US would be college sports.  Most teams enter the season with almost no chance of going all the way, but their fans still show up week after week and they still make their universities tons of money.

8 of 30 teams (and that number has grown recently, too) doesn't seem all that bad.  That's more than 25% of the teams.  This isn't pre-school where everybody has to win at least once so no one's feelings get hurt.