An Interesting Sidebar

by AK1984 on Nov 23, 2011 6:29 AM PST

In Tom Ziller's recent article about why Charlotte is in dire straits as a NBA market, an abundance of topics are broached -- including a lengthy section dissecting the troubled past of former Hornets owner George Shinn -- yet, above all else, the following excerpt struck a chord with me:

"But expansion in the NBA is not easy, even compared to other leagues. The chart [below] shows the average time it takes an expansion team in each league to have a winning season, using data going back to the mid-1990s. The NBA presents the longest timeframe: an average of 6.3 seasons.

And it makes sense, doesn't it? In no league do individual players matter more than in the NBA. You need stars to even break .500, except in special cases. How do you get stars? You draft them, you sign them or you trade for them. True superstars are rarely traded, and then only with the threat of free agency."

Once again, there's proof it's harder for weaker teams to compete against stronger teams in basketball compared to other major sports.

In basketball, an elite talent -- of whom there are less than 10 in the NBA -- holds more worth than an elite talent in baseball, football, and hockey. That has nothing to do with the respective leagues, either, but rather the sports themselves.

Oh, and with regards to Charlotte itself, the NBA would be markedly better off with a second team in the Chicago metropolitan area than trying to gut it out in the Carolinas.

Tweet Comment 19 comments | 3 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Are the expansion draft rules the same for all leagues, allowing the other franchises to protect most of their good guys?

Even if they do, by only starting in the “mid-1990s” Ziller doesn’t create a very broad data base for the NBA.
1995: Toronto Raptors, Vancouver/Memphis Grizzlies
2004: Charlotte Bobcats
So we are talking about 3 teams? I’d like to see more data than that.

Toronto: 5
Charlotte Bobcats: 6
Vancouver: 9
(That averages out to 6.67 btw unless I’m counting wrong and he got to 19 correctly while I get to 20)

There were some d-league expansion drafts after that, which could be used in theory since it’s the same sport though not the same system applies with “stars” getting sent down irregularly.

What about years when there were two expansion drafts? In the NBA that was the case in 1988, when Charlotte (the Hornets) and Miami got their teams. Then in 1989, Orlando and Minnesota got added. That would be 4 additional data points without going very far back. Going back to 1980 you could also add Dallas.

Years to a .500 season:
Charlotte Hornets: 5
Miami: 6
Orlando: 4 (exactly. 5 until better)
Minnesota: 9 (then bad again)
Dallas: 4

Average: 6. Improvement, but in the same ballpark.

His data is equally slim for the MLB:
The only expansion draft after the “mid-1990s” was in 1997 (Tampa Bay Rays, Arizona Diamondbacks).
The one before was in 1992 (Colorado Rockies, Florida Marlins)
The one before that was in 1976/77 (Seattle Mariners, Toronto Blue Jays)

Let’s count those 6 teams:
Tampa Bay: 11
Arizona: 2
Colorado: 3
Florida: 5 (then another long drought)
Seattle: 15 (ouch!)
Toronto: 7

Average: 7.17. Changing position with the NBA now.

For the NFL:
Expansion drafts in 1995 (Panthers, Jacksonville), 1999 (Cleveland Browns re-established), and 2002 (Houston). Also just 4 teams. The one before that was in 1976 (Seattle Seahawks, Tampa Bay Buccaneers).

Panthers: 2
Jacksonville: 2
Cleveland: 4
Houston: 5
Seattle: 3
Tampa Bay: 4

Average: 3.33. Still the easiest to become competitive fast. Good for a team in LA.

For the NHL:
1998: Nashville Predators
1999: Atlanta Thrashers/Winnipeg Jets
2000: Columbus Blue Jackets, Minnesota Wild
Again only 4 teams

The previous expansion drafts were
1993: Florida Panthers, Anaheim Mighty Ducks
1992: Ottawa Senators, Tampa Bay Lightning
1991: Combined expansion and dispersal draft for the San Jose Sharks and the Minnesota North Stars (now Dallas Stars)
1979: Edmonton Oilers, Hartford Whalers (now Carolina Hurricanes), Quebec Nordiques (now Colorado Avalanche), Winnipeg Jets (now Phoenix Coyotes)

Nashville: 6
Atlanta: 6
Columbus: 8
Minnesota Wild: 3
Florida: 3
Anaheim: 4
Ottawa: 6
Tampa Bay: 4
San Jose: 9
Minnesota North Stars: 5
Edmonton: 3
Hartford: 7
Quebec: 3
Winnipeg: 3

Average: 5. Slightly easier than when just taking the last teams in consideration.

New ranking of easiness to become a winning expansion franchise.

1. NFL by far
2. NHL
3. NBA
4. MLB

Interesting idea TZ, I just wanted to check :)

by Norsktroll on Nov 23, 2011 10:54 AM PST reply actions 7 recs

Ah, the Seattle Mariners.

Such a sad sack franchise.

"I Am Mine"

by AK1984 on Nov 23, 2011 10:17 PM PST up reply actions

:((

seems like just yesterday when Ichiro was winning the MVP and the M’s tied the single season wins record.

I JUST WANT MY BASKETBALL BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by Sean in Vancouver on Nov 23, 2011 11:37 PM PST up reply actions

Call me crazy, but I still think 2000 was the year for the M's to win it all.

"I Am Mine"

by AK1984 on Nov 23, 2011 11:45 PM PST up reply actions

whats the fastest an expansion team won it all?

by cavejunctionblazer on Nov 23, 2011 12:38 PM PST reply actions

Milwaukee in 1971?

Third season.

by pualo on Nov 23, 2011 1:11 PM PST up reply actions

I don't know for sure, but I suspect the Milwaukee Bucks.

They drafted some guy named Abdul-Jabbar in their 2nd year and won it all in their 3rd year (1970-71 season).

"You're not too smart, are you? I like that in a man." - Matty Walker in Body Heat (1981)

by BlazerFanSince1970 on Nov 23, 2011 1:11 PM PST up reply actions

Also traded for Oscar Robertson before the third season

by pualo on Nov 23, 2011 1:15 PM PST up reply actions

And got no less than 6 guys who had been or went on to be All-Stars in the expansion draft

That must be some kind of record.

Portland with a title 7 years after the inception of the team isn’t bad either.

by Norsktroll on Nov 23, 2011 1:16 PM PST up reply actions

Though apparently only one of those was still on the team that won the title. Talk about a fast turnover. Wiki:

The Bucks’ selections included former first overall pick Fred Hetzel, six-time All-Star Larry Costello, five-time All-Star Wayne Embry, four-time All-Star Guy Rodgers and one-time All-Star Len Chappell. Prior to the expansion draft, Costello retired from playing due to injury and was named as the franchise’s first head coach. Ten players from the expansion draft joined the Bucks for their inaugural season, but only three played more than one season for the team. Jon McGlocklin, who played eight seasons with the Bucks, was named to the 1969 All-Star Game, becoming the franchise’s first All-Star. He was the only player from the expansion draft that was on the Bucks team that won the NBA championship in 1971.

by Norsktroll on Nov 23, 2011 1:20 PM PST up reply actions

I root for the underdog

Charlotte needs a savior thats for sure. The reason OKC is able to not only survive but thrive in a small market is because they have Durant, Westbrook & an good overall team direction. While I’m not sure of the chances of long term success, Kemba Walker & Bismack Biyombo is at least an interesting young combo to watch going forward.

I’d rather see a return of a Seattle or even Vancouver franchise then a 2nd Chicago team

Get it done... Paul.

by 420Phenom on Nov 23, 2011 12:46 PM PST reply actions

I'll bet Rich Cho adds someone like Michael Kidd-Gilchrist to the team through the draft

Along with Walker, Tyrus Thomas, and Biyombo, that will be a team that can play lock-down defense and still has the personnel to score when needed.

Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!

by HailOden! on Nov 23, 2011 3:36 PM PST up reply actions

Biyombo smells like a bust to me

The great thing for them is they have nothing to lose. If he sucks then they get another high pick.

by vullkem116 on Nov 23, 2011 4:33 PM PST up reply actions

He seems more like a polarizing type to me

One of those guys that, throughout his career, some will say is a bust, and others will defend endlessly. But you can’t teach the combination of size, athleticism, and defensive instincts he possesses. We’ll see how it translates on the court.

Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!

by HailOden! on Nov 23, 2011 7:10 PM PST up reply actions

I wonder how Ziller comes up with his "average"...

it’s apparently not by adding the longest and shortest time for each league and dividing my two….

One would think that the NBA and NHL would be very similar in some ways. Both play on the smallest surfaces of the bunch and have by far the fewest players on the court/ice at the same time. Seems that both would therefore be more prone to being “player dominated”. Why is an “elite” NBA player worth more than an “elite” hockey player? Again, both sports are similar in that there are very few superstars in either one.

by kuhnsmith on Nov 24, 2011 9:11 AM PST reply actions

"Again, both sports are similar in that there are very few superstars in either one."

The big difference between the NBA and the NHL can be summed up in one word: Goalie.

"I Am Mine"

by AK1984 on Nov 25, 2011 2:41 AM PST up reply actions

The answer to one of your questions is obvious

The reason an elite NBA player impacts the game more than an elite NHL player is due to ice time, at the heart of it. Even ignoring the differences in the games, NBA players simply play a much higher percentage of the game that NHL players do. A 40 mpg NBA player is on the court for 80% of the game, while an elite NHL player will be on the ice for less than 40% of the game, in all except the rarest of cases (and goalies, of course). It’s simply a lot easier to impact a game more when you’re playing more.

by Royster on Nov 25, 2011 3:09 PM PST up reply actions

So, we're talking about how long it takes for sports teams to break .500, right?

AK1984-so are you kidding or??? Not sure what a goalie has to do with this…unless, stretching it a bit, a goalie represents a form of defense that basketball doesn’t have. Still not sure how that effects it taking NBA teams longer to reach .500 that NHL teams…I’d think a much bigger variable would be Stern’s influence on how games are played, including alleged referee bias (thank you, Tim Donaghy!)…

by kuhnsmith on Nov 25, 2011 9:38 AM PST reply actions

Goalies have by far the biggest impact in hockey, while position players can only do so much during ...

their limited time on the ice per game. Rarely do mediocre goalies win the Stanley Cup, either, which is why the 2010 Stanley Cup Finals of Chicago versus Philadelphia was such a weird matchup. Neither team had a stud in the net. The 2011 Stanley Cup Finals, however, was back to normal, since the Tim Thomas versus Roberto Luongo matchup was a big-time battle. Luongo came up short, though.

"I Am Mine"

by AK1984 on Nov 25, 2011 8:48 PM PST up reply actions