Over the past week Henry Abbott of TrueHoop asked thirteen experts (and me) the following question:
What WILL be the big story (or stories) of the upcoming 2008-2009 NBA season be? Why?
The answers were reported at TrueHoop on Friday (Experts Gaze in to the Crystal Ball of 2008-09). Before I get to the other answers, here is the long version of my response (Henry obviously had to edit my overly wordy response for space considerations):
My Answer
The big story in 2008-09 is likely to be the LA Lakers. Last year the Lakers won 57 games. The team’s efficiency differential suggested the team should have won 60 games. Hence it was not surprising this team advanced to the NBA Finals.
It’s important to remember, though, that this team only had Andrew Bynum for 35 games. Furthermore they only had Pau Gasol for 27 contests. This season the Lakers will probably have Bynum and Gasol the entire season (barring any injuries). And this means the Lakers are very likely to win more than 60 games. A team winning more than 60 games isn’t really that unusual. What is unusual is that the Lakers are likely to win more games than any other team in the NBA. And this makes the Lakers the favorite to win the NBA title in 2009.
Obviously someone has to win the title, so that by itself is also not a big story. But if Phil Jackson coaches another champion, this will give Jackson ten NBA titles as a head coach. This mark passes Red Auerbach.
By itself, that’s a big story. There are some additional possibilities related to Jackson winning a tenth title that make it even bigger.
- The Boston Celtics are still expected to be the best team in the East. I think the Lakers with Bynum, though, are better. This means that Jackson is likely to win his 10th title against Auerbach’s Celtics.
- To make it even more interesting, if the Lakers win the title in four or five games – and the Lakers have home-court advantage – Jackson will get his 10th title in Boston.
- Given the age of the players on the Lakers, this could be the beginning of another Jackson led dynasty. In fact, this could be the beginning of Jackson’s fourth three-peat (or first four-peat).
- If this is the beginning of another Laker dynasty, then Kobe Bryant is going to become part of the conversation when people discuss the greatest players to ever play the game. In my view, the numbers don’t support Kobe being part of that conversation. But if he is part of another three titles, that is where he will be.
So that, I think, will be the big story. The Lakers win the title in 2009 and with that story are a whole host of potentially very interesting storylines.
Another Economist Answers
I was not the only economist who answered Henry’s question. Justin Wolfers – a recently tenured economist at the University of Pennsylvania (and a very talented researcher who is often called upon to discuss important issues) – also offered a response:
In four words: the Portland Trail Blazers. After going .500 in an Oden-less season, the Trail Blazers have a lot to look forward to in 2008-09. Alongside 7-foot Greg Oden at center, Portland will have the ability to overpower their opponents with 7-foot-1 Przybilla, 6-foot-11 Aldridge, and 6-foot-11 Frye. This combination should drastically improve Portland’s defense, which ranked 21st in blocks per game and 25th in rebounds per game in 2007-08. Likewise, Portland’s offense will be one to be reckoned with as Roy, Outlaw, Webster, and Aldridge (the four Trail Blazers that averaged double-digits points last season) will see more open shots with the inside-outside offense that will result from Oden drawing double-teams down low.
The Economy?
In my response I focused on the Lakers. Justin focused on the Trail Blazers. A few other “experts” though mentioned something about the national economy. Although you couldn’t tell from the response offered by Justin and myself, apparently there are some issues with the national economy at the moment. And Mark Cuban (owner of the Mavericks), Dave Zirin (author), Keith Smart (assistant coach with Golden State), and David Thorpe (ESPN basketball analyst) all mentioned the possibility that a downturn in the economy could impact the NBA.
Just to review…
- the national and world economy is having some problems.
- when asked about the big story in basketball, the two economists didn’t seem to notice the issues in the economy.
- the non-economists, though, seemed to think the problems in the national economy might be important.
To be fair, Justin has commented on the recent upheaval at the Freakonomics blog (see When Economics and Politics Collide and Economists and Bailouts: Mea Culpa).
And much to my surprise (and I will explain what I mean by “surprise” in a moment), Martin Schmidt and I had a paper published back in 2001 (“Competitive Balance and Attendance: The Case of Major League Baseball.” published in the Journal of Sports Economics) that examined the link between changes in per-capita income and attendance in baseball. Our analysis indicated that a 3% decline in per-capita income – which would be the biggest drop in our economy since 1950 – would lead to about 200 fewer tickets sold to each regular season game. This is a statistically significant impact, but I am not sure constitutes a very large economic impact.
What did I mean by “surprise”? The aforementioned JSE article was focused on the link between competitive balance and attendance. Per-capita income was included as a control variable in our study, and hence was not an important part of our paper. Consequently, until Marty reminded me a few months ago, I forgot we had ever looked at the link between baseball attendance and changes in the national economy.
More on the Economy
The reason why Marty and I were discussing this rather obscure result is that a reporter – and I think it was Pablo Torre of Sports Illustrated — was asking me about the impact an economic downturn would have on sports. I say “I think”, because the Torre article – The Changing Face of the Sports Fan – doesn’t mention the Schmidt-Berri result (I am quoted on the topic of sports as an addiction, which is a research area I know of but have not contributed to in the past). I think, though, in the course of talking to Torre (and we talked more than once across a few months), I did try and look at the link between attendance and economic growth (and this examination led to a conversation with Marty).
The Torre article does a very nice job of discussing how the current economic trouble might impact sports. The general consensus of sports economists (and several are quoted in this article) is that sports tend to be recession resistant, although a major downturn could be a problem.
A few more notes on the impact an economic downturn might have on sports…
- I played around with data on NBA attendance and changes in per-capita income and I wasn’t able to find much of a relationship. Of course, every economic decline in the history of the NBA has been less than 3%.
- If we go back to the Great Depression (you can do this for baseball but not for basketball), you do see a clear impact on attendance. Of course, the economic decline during the Great Depression far exceeded 3%. So if we are headed for a very severe decline, there could be (as noted) an impact on sports.
- And if you want even more on this topic, USA Today ran two recent articles on the subject (Economic Squeeze Play to Hit Sports and Sports Also Paying a Price Amid Struggling Economy). These articles quoted Skip Sauer (from The Sports Economist) and Andrew Zimbalist.
More Interviews
Henry Abbott at ESPN and Pablo Torre at Sports Illustrated are not the only reporters I have spoken with recently. Here are a few more stories:
- Rohan of At the Hive – a blog for the New Orleans Hornets – conducted an interview with me which was posted this past week. The conversation touches on The Wages of Wins, Wins Produced, and also comments on various issues that might be interesting to fans of the Hornets.
- Curtis Jenson of the Southern Utah University Journal (our school paper) wrote a story about me joining SUU (Sports fanatic is first pick for econ professor position). The article details some of my research and also reveals that my new colleagues don’t know me that well :)
- And as I watched Tampa Bay try and eliminate the Red Sox (are we sick of the Red Sox nation yet?), I was reminded of a story in the St. Petersburg Times last month. The story – by Stephen Nohlgren and Aaron Sharockman (Do new parks bring wins?) – discussed the impact of building a new stadium in Tampa Bay for the Rays. In this story I cast some doubt on the impact new stadiums have on team success.
One last note on stadiums… one does suspect that any economic downturn will reduce the ability of teams to get a new stadium. And since stadiums really don’t impact economic growth (a very consistent finding in the sports economics literature), it might be good if fewer of these get built.
– DJ
The WoW Journal Comments Policy
Wages of Wins Journal 
Jeremy
October 20, 2008
The Biggest story, DBerri, will be the Celtics quest for repeating as champions. I know you like the Celtics, but saying the Lakers are assured victory over all Western Conference comers, and then the Celtics seems like quite the daunting task. The Lakers did not appear to look like an elite team just 4 short months ago. (Cleveland plays defense and is making major strides, Detroit was superior to LA, and a case for a healthy Spurs team could also be made.)
While I am a huge supporter of your statistics, and defend your points constantly, I have a very hard time thinking that with BOTH Gasol and Bynum on the court at the same time, two true centers, something has to give (especially defensively). Neither will be as productive as they would be on their own. I would be curious to see how two Centers in the same lineup have done together, in terms of decreased productivity.
Let’s also take into account that one of your most productive players in the league last year, Sir Lamar Odom, will either get more bench time (resulting in lazy play and sulking , eventually demanding a trade in this a contract year), or play more, forcing either Bynum or Pau to the bench.
If the Lakers choose to go with a lineup of say: Fischer/Farmar, Bryant, Odom, Gasol, Bynum. Obviously that looks good on paper. But is that a strong defensive unit?? Fischer was destroyed by Rondo in the 8 games they matched up, and Farmar is not quite a true point guard. How will that PG tandem do with some of the west’s best pgs?? Kidd, Nash, Deron Will, CP3, Baron D, to name a few. The three bigs they would be starting will create offensive nightmares, but will also be a defensive liability. Can Odom really check the elite 3’s like Lebron or Pierce?? Will Gasol get tougher??
Too many questions, answers to come. But I think your excessive love affair with the Lakers will shine poorly on you if they dont win it all, and do so handily.
Jared
October 20, 2008
I’m going to agree with most of what Jeremy says here. At some point you’re going to see diminishing returns from cycling in so many 7 footers. Having all three of them on the court at once is going to leave one very slow team. I think they’re biggest question mark is at PG though. Fisch is getting up there and Farmar is too much of a ball hog to offer any real value in that starting lineup.
John W. Davis
October 20, 2008
I think Kobe’s health will be a big story. Can you play for 16-18 months with an injury finger. He does shoot a whole lot.
I hope that doesn’t hurt your prediction.
Blazer Fan
October 20, 2008
When will you have the Blazers team review up?
stephanie
October 21, 2008
Jeremy: I think Odom could give Pierce fits with his size and speed, although I could be wrong (feel free to cite any instances of Pierce owning Odom). But defensively Bynum seems to be their defensive ace. I mean KG was tentative against Gasol single coverage at times. It may be downright ugly if Bynum is on him.
And the Lakers did seem like an elite team last year…before the Finals, anyway. It probably helped that Kobe was playing out of his mind. IIRC he was averaging 30 ppg on 50% before he hit the green buzzsaw.
What I’m wondering about is whether Tony Allen can return to form. I’m not sure if he was a productive player in terms of WP but he used to be much better before that stupid injury (seriously, youtube it, you’ll laugh). I’ve heard he’s been impressive in pre-season so far, so at least he should be healthy. And if Leon Powe and Rondo continue to improve then it seems Boston’s good to go and any aging from KG/Pierce/Allen will be made up for. Go Celts! :D
Jeremy
October 21, 2008
Hey Stephanie. I like the way you ended your post. In terms of Odom giving Pierce (I also mentioned LeBron) fits, I have no examples to site, largely because a team wouldnt dare match up Odom on Pierce. I am saying that in the hypothetical rematch scenario, Odom would serve as the Lakers 3 and have to man up against Pierce. I see Odom more as a “tweener” (3/4) who is too slow for true wing 3’s (Pierce), and not physical enough for pure Power forwards (lets say Al Horford). Ultimately the point I was getting at is the Lakers with Odom, Gasol, and Bynum as their 3,4,5 would be a painfully slow defensive team. I would say also, that Radmanovich, who was largely tasked with guarding Pierce, is quicker and the same size as Odom (and probably more motivated), and had absolutely no chance against PP.
The Lakers obviously bring out alot of opinions, but to me, they were the 3rd best team in the NBA last year at best. The two best teams (according to win differential, and from what I saw on the TV) went at it in the Eastern Conference Finals.
In the playoffs last year, The Lakers looked like they could score at will against lowly Denver, who plays no D. Had a drag out brawl with up and coming Utah, and beat down a clearly gimpy San Antonio team before getting thrashed in the finals. To me, that simply is not an elite NBA team. Also, and alot of this is pure opinion, I would have a hard time thinking of any team that really doesn’t play tough defense as an elite team. (I certainly recall after getting through a tough Detroit team, seeing the Lakers in game 1 and asking myself if it was a European team it was so soft.)
We have all fallen for the lust and draw of the Lakers before (everyone picked them to win the finals last year. Even Vegas had them as 2 to 1 favorites) – and frankly, that was not a competetive series – two gift wins on LA’s homecourt made it seem as if it was.
I am not a Lakers hater, just a realist. If they go majorily with a unit of Fischer, Kobe, Odom, Gasol, Bynum, that would be a horrific and freakishly slow defensive team.
Maybe Dave’s metrics don’t bear this out. But there’s no way around what I just stated. That is the truth.
John W. Davis
October 21, 2008
All of this might be moot. Kobe hyperextended his knee on Tuesday night.
How good are the Lakers without Kobe?
Jeremy
October 22, 2008
From what I hear the Kobe injury is minor, day to day….and if we are to believe what Professor Berri writes, Kobe is not the key, just a (major)piece of the puzzle. Bynum is the one that could really be the dominator.
slowjoe66
October 30, 2008
I’m trying to integrate some Win score stuff on my blog. My question is where can I find out what the average win score is for each position?? I haven’t been able to find it. Thanks so much in advance.
Joe