Parity

[e_blazer]

So, has the NBA Western Conference finally come as close to achieving parity as at any time in the past? I think so. The top dogs from the start of last season (OKC, Spurs, Lakers) are all a bit worse...a lot worse in the Lakers case. The Clippers, Rockets and maybe Grizzlies and Warriors look to move into the upper tier. Several of the bottom tier teams look to be significantly better (Pelicans, Blazers, T'Wolves). Other than the Kings and Suns, there won't be any easy nights when Western teams face each other. The CBA changes are certainly a factor in these changes. The Thunder couldn't afford to keep Harden or even Martin. The marginal difference that the Lakers could offer over the Rockets wasn't enough to keep Howard in LA. All in all, I don't think things could get much more even to start a season. I guess the biggest question is, is it a good thing for the NBA?

 

[Eastoff]

So, has the NBA Western Conference finally come as close to achieving parity as at any time in the past? I think so. The top dogs from the start of last season (OKC, Spurs, Lakers) are all a bit worse...a lot worse in the Lakers case. The Clippers, Rockets and maybe Grizzlies and Warriors look to move into the upper tier. Several of the bottom tier teams look to be significantly better (Pelicans, Blazers, T'Wolves). Other than the Kings and Suns, there won't be any easy nights when Western teams face each other. The CBA changes are certainly a factor in these changes. The Thunder couldn't afford to keep Harden or even Martin. The marginal difference that the Lakers could offer over the Rockets wasn't enough to keep Howard in LA. All in all, I don't think things could get much more even to start a season. I guess the biggest question is, is it a good thing for the NBA?

I think it is a good thing, definitely. But when will we have equality across the conferences? Or in other words, me: boohoo we have a tough conference. =[

 

[santeesioux]

It's a good thing for the NFL, so it would be a good thing for the NBA? I can't think i'm the only one that's completely turned off by Stern completely pushing the "stars" in the big markets down our throats all the time.

 

[Masbee]

I agree.

I don't think the season will play out as looking like parity. Over the course of the season, due to injuries, team chemistry, scheduling differences (One bad road trip for a Western Conference team and their season could be over), and so on, as the season progresses, those having the good seasons will continue fighting hard, those falling behind start coasting and we get separation.

But, as you say, to start the season, has there been this many teams who feel they have a legit shot at a Top 4 finish? Have there this many teams thinking they will be in the playoffs?

I don't think there is real "parity". There are still tiers. But, this offseason, the teams at the top did not improve (OKC, SAS); the teams below the top 5 improved the most (Warriors, Houston); and Denver and the Lakers falling behind may make room for upstarts who did improve this offseason to make the playoffs (Portland, Minny, NO).

It could be a real battle at the top. OKC took a step back. San Antonio returns the same roster, but one year older. Memphis and the Clippers seemed to have improved their rosters. Houston and Warriors are unproven with big changes, but both think they are in that mix. Health may dictate which of these wins the West.

 

[jlprk]

Parity at the start of a season is entirely different from parity at the end of a season. Competition destroys parity. An interesting thing to research would be, in NBA history, which regular seasons had the most parity?

 

[crandc]

What I think is there is no clear favorite - OKC? SA? Houston? Look at the East and Miami is still the clear favorite. I think it's exciting. It doesn't mean, as masbee said, that all teams will end up within 2 games of each other, someone will get hot/cold, injuries may happen, but going into the season the West is a toss up.

 

[Draco]

4 different teams have won the west the last 4 years.

Yeah I don't remember it ever being like this. I think it is a result of the CBA; not allowing sign and trades or the full-mid level to tax teams is having a huge impact to level the playing field. The big free agents Josh Smith and Tyreke went to lottery teams instead of contenders. Small markets are aiming to win now instead of being thrifty and saving money. There is a minimum payroll. SA won the conference but the way Pop rests starters and their age I wouldn't be surprised at all if they are the 7th seed just barely making the playoffs. Still wouldn't want to play them in the first round. I do think Denver is much worse by losing their two best players, so add them to the Lakers, Kings and Suns at the bottom.

The East may have the best 4 teams, so its about impossible to get through those guys, especially Miami, to make the finals. But in the West there are 6 teams that I can easily see getting to the finals. The west is so deep one or two of them might not even make the playoffs. I think the road to the playoffs is far easier in the east. A team can back their way in with a losing record. But actually making noise in the playoffs is far easier in the west so I'm happy that's the conference we're in.

 

[Public Defender]

I don't know if it's a good thing for the NBA.

But two things:

1.) It's a good thing for me, as a fan of the present-day Portland Trail Blazers, because the team isn't a favorite to win the conference. When there's significant parity, it makes for an exciting start to the season, because we (fans) can feel good about the team's chances. At least for a while.

2.) If we're going to look to the NFL as a good example of a league with parity - and believe that the NBA might be headed in that direction - then I see it as a good thing for the league. When you look around the NFL, lots of small market teams have had success under their recent Collective Bargaining Agreements. Sure, the Jaguars are terrible year in and year out, but when 75-80% of teams in a given year have a legitimate shot at making the postseason - in a league that doesn't let half the teams in, like the NBA - that's a good model for small-market franchises that aren't going to get there if they have to outbid for talent or get enormously lucky.

 

[PapaG]

Parity at the start of a season is entirely different from parity at the end of a season. Competition destroys parity. An interesting thing to research would be, in NBA history, which regular seasons had the most parity?

The 1976-77 season had a lot of parity. Only 3 teams over 50 wins, topping out at 53 for the Lakers.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_1977_standings.html

 

[PtldPlatypus]

The 1976-77 season had a lot of parity. Only 3 teams over 50 wins, topping out at 53 for the Lakers.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_1977_standings.html

Wow--more than 2/3 of teams (15 of 22) won at least 40 games that season, and only 1 team was below 30 wins. By contrast, 17 of 30 teams won 40 games last year, and 8 teams were below 30.

I like the look of the '77 season standings much better.